turingmind_list_memory

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly indicates a read operation via 'list', but does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, nor does it describe any side effects, rate limits, or authentication needs. Adding a safety hint would improve 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 two sentences long, front-loads the main purpose, and avoids unnecessary detail. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a tool with 10 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It omits pagination behavior (e.g., implicit ordering, maximum page size), response format (list of memory objects), and how filters interact. A more complete description would mention that results are paginated and include a summary of what fields are returned.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description mentions three filter dimensions (category, status, scope, security tags) but does not add new meaning beyond what is already in the schema. It does not explain how filters combine (AND logic) or provide examples.

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 verb 'list' and the resource 'memory entries', and explicitly mentions filtering and pagination. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'turingmind_get_memory' (single entry) and 'turingmind_delete_memory' by framing it as a listing operation with multiple filter dimensions.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., 'turingmind_get_memory' for a single entry, or 'turingmind_get_audit_trail' for history). There is no mention of context or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage independently.

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