audit_memory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It doesn't say whether this is a read-only listing, whether it mutates anything, whether pagination applies, what the ordering is, or what the response contains. Only the terse enumeration of categories is given.

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?

A single tight sentence with no padding, and the purpose is front-loaded. The list of qualifying states is dense but each word earns its place by defining the filter.

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?

For a tool with zero annotation coverage, a 0%-documented schema, and no output schema, the description leaves too much unresolved: nothing on mutability, scope semantics, result format, or how results should be acted on. An agent can guess the intent but not invoke it reliably.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the two parameters (limit, scope) are undocumented anywhere. The description explains nothing about what 'scope' means for this tool or how limit interacts with the result set, leaving the agent to guess the valid scope values despite the sibling tools implying workspace/source scoping.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (memories) plus the qualifying states it targets: expired, superseded, invalidated, conflicted, need review. That distinguishes it from recall (general retrieval) and review_changes, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling as the alternative.

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?

The enumeration of problem states implies when the tool is applicable, but there is no explicit instruction on when to prefer it over recall or review_changes, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is inferable but not guided.

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