memory_list

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

readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false already establish the safe, local read profile, and the description is consistent with that. It adds the useful behavioral note that this is a browse/enumeration path rather than a retrieval-ranked path, but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or return shape.

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 compact sentences with the key differentiator (non-semantic browsing) front-loaded, followed by filters and use cases. No filler, though the final use-case sentence is the weakest.

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, annotated, zero-required-parameter read tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers purpose, filters, and usage adequately. Return ordering and pagination behavior are the only notable omissions.

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 all three parameters (limit, project, category) are documented in the schema itself. The description only echoes category/project filtering and adds no syntax, matching, or defaulting detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

Clear verb+resource ('Lists memories') with an explicit scope qualifier ('without semantic search') and the filter dimensions it supports. It distinguishes itself from the semantic-search siblings by mode, though it never names recall or find_similar directly.

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?

'Useful for auditing, maintenance, and discovery' gives implied usage contexts, and 'without semantic search' hints the alternative is a semantic tool. But it never says when NOT to use it (e.g., versus memory_audit or recall), leaving the agent to infer the routing.

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