Memory List

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint, so the description correctly aligns with those. It adds value by highlighting token-saving item_format options ('~50% fewer tokens' etc.), but does not disclose other behavioral traits like pagination or result limits.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the token optimization advice is efficiently appended.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description is too brief for a tool with 12 parameters and no parameter descriptions in the schema. It lacks details on pagination, response format options, and many filters, leaving significant gaps for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'kind, nest, branch, and tag filters' and explains item_format, but omits many parameters (status, project_path, topic, actor_id, limit, offset, response_format). The mention of 'scope' as a filter is inaccurate. Overall, partial coverage with some added meaning.

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 'List stored memories' with optional filters, establishing a specific verb and resource. It is differentiated from sibling memory tools like memory_store or memory_delete. However, it mentions 'scope' which is not an actual parameter, causing slight confusion.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like memory_recall or memory_events. The description provides no context on appropriate scenarios or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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