memory_list

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds real behavioral context: numbering is only valid for the listing just produced, deletion downstream is permanent and requires re-reading plus confirmation, and include=all exposes superseded/retracted/archived rows. It also prescribes how results should be surfaced to the user, which is well beyond annotation coverage.

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?

Purpose and output format are front-loaded in the first sentence, and every subsequent sentence carries actionable guidance. It is dense and runs long for a list tool, but there is little outright padding.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully defines the return shape (numbered inventory with [type] id= created= source=) and how to render it, which is the main gap it needs to fill. The remaining gap is the undocumented type and limit parameters.

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 50%: scope and include carry detailed schema descriptions (including the D68 default change), while type and limit have no schema description at all. The description explains scope=both and include=all usage but never clarifies what type filters on or what limit does, so it only partially compensates for the gap.

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 first clause states a specific verb, resource, ordering, and output shape: 'List memories in a scope, newest first, as a numbered inventory.' It also implicitly separates itself from memory_search (retrieval by query) and memory_forget (deletion), which it names explicitly later.

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 gives explicit triggering conditions ('When the user asks what do you remember about me?, use scope=both'), a named alternative for deletion (memory_forget), and the precondition for using include=all (audit view). Nothing about when to choose this over siblings is left to inference.

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