memory_topics

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the limit default (50) and max (200), a 2000-character per-body cap, and that the reply reports total and truncated so completeness is verifiable. It omits any auth/permission context and doesn't state this is a read-only operation, leaving a modest gap.

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?

Three tight sentences, purpose and ordering front-loaded, bounds and truncation semantics following. No filler, though the bounding sentence is somewhat dense.

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 two-param list tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behaviors: ordering, bounding, and truncation reporting. The main gap is the undocumented project parameter, but the invocation-critical semantics are otherwise present.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It fully documents limit (default 50, max 200), but project is only referenced obliquely as 'for the project' with no format or scope guidance, leaving half the parameters thin.

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 (topic summaries for the project) plus an ordering guarantee ('newest first'), so an agent can tell it apart from memory_search and memory_recent by function. It does not name the siblings explicitly, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

Usage is implied by 'List topic summaries for the project,' and the bounding/truncation notes hint at when this over memory_get_details (bulk overview vs. detail). But no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or alternative routing is given.

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