agent_memory_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add genuinely useful context: returned content is untrusted third-party data and instructions in it must not be followed. However, it omits the safety profile of the operation itself (that it is a read with no mutation), listing limits, ordering, and whether empty namespaces error or return empty.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, with no padding. The safety sentence is slightly tangential to the listing action but earns its place given the untrusted-data context.

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-value explanation is unnecessary, and the tool takes only two optional parameters. The description covers scope and the untrusted-content hazard, leaving only minor gaps such as result ordering and pagination/limits.

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% and both parameters (prefix, namespace) are documented in the schema with their defaults. The description mentions the namespace concept but adds nothing about prefix matching semantics or how prefix and namespace interact, so it is at the baseline for fully-documented schemas.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List key names in a memory namespace') and immediately narrows scope with '(not values)', which cleanly separates it from sibling agent_memory_get. It does not name sibling tools explicitly, but the scope qualifier is enough for an agent to route correctly.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus agent_memory_get, agent_memory_namespaces, or agent_memory_delete. The second sentence ('Acts as the identity in the local credential store') reads as a behavior claim rather than a usage condition, so the agent must infer the use case from the name alone.

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