mcp_engram_list_concepts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool is bounded and outputs a truncated list with notes, but does not explicitly declare it as read-only or discuss any side effects, permissions, or error conditions. The description adds moderate context beyond the bare minimum.

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?

Two sentences plus an output note, front-loading the purpose and providing essential guidance. No filler words, every sentence earns its place.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage guidance, and output format (newline-separated, with total/truncation notes). It lacks explicit read-only declaration but is otherwise complete for its complexity.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds emphasis on using the prefix and provides examples, which adds modest value beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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 action ('lists'), the resource ('concept names in the memory manifold'), and the bounded nature. It distinguishes from sibling list tools by specifying concepts and including a warning about unfiltered dumps.

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?

The description provides explicit guidance to always pass a prefix and warns against unfiltered full dumps. It does not cross-reference alternative sibling tools, but the context of listing concepts is clear and the warning is actionable.

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