mcp_engram_list_namespaces

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and discloses behavior: lists namespaces on disk and marks active one. It does not mention authorization, side effects, or performance, but for a simple read-only listing, this is adequate. Could be slightly more detailed.

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 three short sentences, each with a clear label (BEHAVIOR, USAGE, OUTPUT). It is front-loaded with the essential purpose, no unnecessary words.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description explains the output format adequately. It does not mention error handling or edge cases, but for this simple tool it is sufficient. The description helps differentiate from sibling tools well.

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?

There are zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100% by default. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description does not need to add param information; it correctly focuses on output.

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 discovers and lists all available memory namespaces on disk and indicates the active one. It uses specific verbs and resource, and differentiates from the sibling tool mcp_engram_set_namespace which switches namespaces.

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 explicitly says 'Call this when you need to know what project contexts exist before attempting to switch namespaces,' providing clear context for use. It implies when not to use (if you want to switch, use the sibling).

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