memory_list

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It only says 'list memories', implying a read operation, but fails to describe pagination limits, default sort behavior, or any side effects. This is insufficient for safe use.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded, no redundancy. Could be improved by adding parameter details without being excessively long. Current version is concise but too sparse.

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?

Despite an output schema existing, the description omits critical context: what filtering fields are available, what sorting options exist, pagination behavior (max limit?), and how this differs from other retrieval tools. Incomplete for a tool with 8 optional parameters.

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 has 8 parameters with 0% coverage in description. The description mentions 'filtering, sorting, and pagination' but provides no mapping to parameters like tags, limit, offset, sort_by, etc. An agent gets no help understanding parameter roles or valid values.

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?

Description clearly states 'List memories' with filtering, sorting, and pagination, making the purpose evident. However, it does not distinguish from siblings like memory_search or memory_recall, which serve overlapping retrieval purposes.

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 on when to use this tool versus siblings. For example, it does not specify that this is a structured list query vs. a semantic search (memory_search) or a specific recall (memory_recall).

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