list_personal_context

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying that only 'active' memories are returned and by describing the type of content stored, which helps the agent set expectations beyond the structured annotations.

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 and front-loaded: it states the core action and resource first, gives illustrative examples, then provides usage context. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundancy beyond the harmless 'Read-only' confirmation.

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 parameterless read-only tool with an output schema and annotations covering safety, the description fully covers purpose, scope, content type, and when to invoke it. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and call this tool 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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema is trivially complete at 100% coverage. With no parameters to document, the description's focus on the returned content and usage context is appropriate. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description earns it.

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 names a specific verb ('List'), a specific resource ('the user's active Personal Context memories'), and includes concrete examples. It clearly distinguishes this tool from the sibling add_or_update_personal_context and from other list tools by focusing on durable remembered preferences and circumstances.

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 explicitly states when to use: when the user asks what has been remembered about them, or before proposing a new memory to check for existing coverage. This gives clear practical guidance and implicitly routes the agent to add_or_update_personal_context when no existing memory covers the subject.

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