memkernel_list_notices

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only listing but never states that explicitly, and says nothing about pagination semantics (limit default 50, offset) or what max_tokens truncation does to results — material behavior for a list tool.

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?

A single tight sentence with the core purpose front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is part of the under-specification problem rather than a virtue in isolation.

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?

An output schema exists so return shape need not be explained, but with zero annotations and zero parameter documentation the description should do more. Pagination, token-limiting behavior, and the meaning of the resource filter are all missing from an otherwise straightforward list operation.

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% and five parameters exist, yet the description explains only one of them (include_cleared conceptually). limit, offset, resource, and max_tokens are entirely undocumented, and 'workspace-wide' arguably undercuts the existence of a resource filter.

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?

Specific verb 'List' plus resource 'advisories/notices', with scope ('workspace-wide') and state filter ('active and stale') made explicit. It distinguishes itself from write-side siblings like memkernel_post_notice and memkernel_clear_notice by being the read/list operation, though it does not name a sibling directly.

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?

'optionally include cleared history' implies when to set include_cleared, giving minimal usage direction. It never states when to prefer this over memkernel_export_notices, memkernel_history, or memkernel_query_state, leaving cross-tool routing to inference.

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