brain_memories

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. The verb 'List' implies a read-only operation, and the context of checking existing memories supports this. However, it does not explicitly state side effects, authorization needs, or error behavior, and the mention of 'tags' is inaccurate relative to the schema.

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 concise sentences that state the function and intended use. It is efficient, though the inaccurate 'tags' mention is a small blemish that could confuse rather than inform.

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 simple tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate purpose and usage context. However, it does not explain return values, how project_id interacts with SAOR_PROJECT_ID, or address the missing 'tags' parameter, leaving some gaps.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema and actually misleads by mentioning 'tags' as a filter when no such parameter exists in the schema. This inaccuracy reduces the score.

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 lists memories in the brain with optional filters, using a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like brain_list, but the focus on memories and the 'before writing new memories' context provides some distinction.

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 an explicit use case: 'Use to understand what the brain already knows before writing new memories — avoid duplicates.' It does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so it stops short of a full 5.

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