memory_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format (id, category, source, content preview), explicitly notes no embeddings are returned, and implies read-only behavior. It could state read-only explicitly, but it's clearly a list operation with no side effects mentioned.

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 2-3 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then filters, then return format, then the alternative. Every sentence carries information with no filler.

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 no output schema, the description covers the return structure (id, category, source, content preview). All parameters are explained, filtering options are detailed, and the alternative tool is mentioned. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the category_prefix example and the '%' append behavior, and clarifies the limit/offset defaults and cap. It goes beyond the schema by giving practical usage guidance.

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 lists memories in the vector store, specifies the return payload (metadata + content preview, no embeddings), and explicitly contrasts with memory_stats ('Use memory_stats for counts/breakdown'), distinguishing it from siblings.

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?

It provides concrete usage context: filtering by exact category or prefix with an example ('project:<PROJECT>:'), pagination via limit/offset, and directs to memory_stats for counts/breakdown. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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