list_user_memories

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and adequately does so by using 'Lists' to imply a read-only operation, specifying the 'active' filter, and documenting the default limit. It does not cover ordering or pagination, but these are minor for a simple list tool with an output schema.

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 front-loaded with the purpose sentence and followed by a compact argument list. There is no filler or redundant information.

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 simple two-parameter list operation with an output schema, the description is essentially complete: it defines the scope, the parameters, and the default limit. It would benefit from a brief pointer to recall_memories for search-style retrieval, but that omission is already captured in usage guidelines.

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%, so the Args section fully compensates by explaining user_id as the unique identifier and limit as the maximum number of memories to return with its default value. This adds real meaning beyond the bare schema titles.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Lists all active stored memories for a user.' It is not a tautology, and it adds scoping ('active', 'for a user'), but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling recall_memories tool.

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 given about when to use this tool versus recall_memories, forget_memory, or remember_conversation. The description simply states what it does; an agent must infer when it is the right choice.

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