list_shared_memories

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It explicitly states the ordering (by most recent) and the cost (1 credit), both of which are important for an agent to know. The tool name 'list' already suggests read-only behavior, so additional transparency is not essential. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the name.

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 two sentences long, directly stating the action, ordering, and cost. Every word is necessary; there is no redundancy or fluff. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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 (2 params, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, ordering, scope, and cost. However, it does not describe the return format (e.g., what fields are returned per memory), which might be needed for an agent to handle the output. Still, the tool is straightforward enough that this is a minor gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (namespace_key and limit). The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides. The cost note is a behavioral trait, not parameter semantics. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action: 'List all memories in a shared namespace, ordered by most recent.' It specifies the resource (memories), scope (shared namespace), ordering, and a cost note. The sibling tool list_memories implies a different scope (likely personal), so this description effectively distinguishes the 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?

The description provides the cost (1 credit) and a basic scope (shared namespace), which implies when to use it (when dealing with shared memories). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools such as 'list_memories' for personal memories or 'retrieve_shared_memory' for a single item. Usage context is implied but not explicit.

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