list_memories

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations provide (no mention of pagination, sorting, filtering, or response format). With annotations covering the safety profile, a baseline 3 is appropriate as the description adds no value but doesn't contradict annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters, though it could be more informative.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, read-only, with output schema), the description is minimally adequate but lacks context about what 'memories' are, how they're structured, or how this differs from sibling tools. The output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, but more operational guidance would be helpful.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter gaps, making a baseline 4 appropriate since no parameter information is required.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'List all memories' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('memories'), but it's vague about scope and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'read_memory' or 'find_symbol'. It doesn't specify what constitutes a 'memory' or how this differs from other retrieval operations.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'read_memory' (for specific memory retrieval) or 'find_symbol' (for searching). The description doesn't mention any prerequisites, context for usage, or exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.