memory_list

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

No annotations provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states it lists keys and lightweight metadata, but does not clarify what 'lightweight metadata' includes, whether it is read-only, permission requirements, or behavior when scope is invalid. The description is insufficiently transparent.

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 a single concise sentence with no fluff. It front-loads the core action and resource, and every word is informative. Ideal length for quick comprehension.

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, no annotations, and three parameters (two undocumented by description), the description lacks completeness. It does not explain return format, pagination, error conditions, or the role of optional parameters, leaving significant gaps for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It mentions 'explicit memory scope' hinting at the required 'scope' parameter, but does not clarify the optional 'task_id' and 'project_id' parameters (are they filters? scope qualifiers?). The description adds minimal meaning beyond 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 the tool's purpose: listing keys and lightweight metadata for an explicit memory scope. It uses specific verbs and nouns, and distinguishes from sibling tools like memory_get (retrieve specific memory), memory_set (create/update), memory_search (search across scopes), and memory_delete (remove).

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?

No guidelines on when to use or not use this tool compared to siblings like memory_search or memory_get. The description does not mention alternatives, prerequisites, or context where this tool is preferred, leaving the agent without decision support.

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