memory_list

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

The description declares 'Read-only', indicating no side effects. It mentions listing includes 'stale or superseded entries', adding context. With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden well, though more detail on pagination or error behavior could enhance transparency.

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 concise with two sentences. The first sentence states the core function and read-only nature; the second provides usage differentiation. No redundant information.

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 6 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main use cases (browse, audit, cleanup) and distinguishes from siblings. However, it does not describe the return format, which might be inferred but is not explicit.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all 6 parameters. The tool description adds context like 'optionally filtered' and 'reverse-chronological order', which complements but does not significantly expand on the schema.

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 'list recent memories' with 'reverse-chronological order', specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings 'search' and 'pack' by mentioning they are for relevance-ranked retrieval.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'for review or cleanup' and 'to browse or audit'. It also says when not to use: 'use search or pack for relevance-ranked retrieval against a query'. This provides clear guidance on tool selection.

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