list_global_memory_entries

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

No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions a return structure (success, entries, count) but does not state whether the operation is read-only, safe, or has any side effects. The scope 'common to all projects' is noted, but other important behaviors are omitted.

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 concise and uses clear bullet-point structure for Args and Returns. However, the inaccuracy about caller_agent_id being required detracts from its reliability.

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 existence of an output schema and sibling tools, the description lacks details on pagination, sorting, or how tags interact. The difference from list_memory_entries is not explained, leaving the agent to infer context.

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%, yet the description adds only minimal meaning: tags for filtering and caller_agent_id as caller. The description claims caller_agent_id is required, contradicting the input schema which marks it optional with default null. This inconsistency reduces utility.

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 tool retrieves a list of global memory entries, emphasizing it is common to all projects. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_memory_entries which likely operate on per-project memory.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_memory_entries or search_global_memory_archive. The description does not mention prerequisites or usage context.

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