memdata_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It reveals that the tool returns chunk counts and dates, implying it is a read-only operation. However, it does not detail the exact fields returned or its behavior under limits. Still, it provides a solid behavioral outline.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the core purpose, and provides immediate context for use. Every word adds value with no redundancy.

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 partially explains return values (chunk counts and dates). It covers the main use cases but lacks explicit field names. Considering tool complexity and sibling context, it is adequately complete.

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% with a single well-documented parameter (limit with default and max). The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states 'List all stored memories/artifacts' with specific outputs ('chunk counts and dates'). It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning use cases: 'before querying' and 'to find artifact IDs for deletion', which aligns with sibling tools like memdata_query and memdata_delete.

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 clear context: use this tool to see what is in memory before querying or to get IDs for deletion. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the positive guidance is sufficient for an agent to make appropriate choices.

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