memory_list

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

With no annotations, the description explains ordering and pagination but does not mention safety (read-only implied), output format, or potential rate limits. Adequate but minimal for a read 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?

Two concise sentences plus a two-line arg list. No wasted words, main purpose front-loaded. Perfectly sized for a simple list tool.

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 list with two optional params and an output schema, the description covers core functionality: listing, ordering, pagination. Lacks mention of filter vs unfiltered listing but sufficient given tool simplicity.

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 has 0% description coverage; the description compensates by explaining limit ('maximum number to return, default 20') and offset ('skip for pagination, default 0'). Adds clear meaning beyond schema types and defaults.

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?

Description clearly states it lists memories in the current project, ordered by creation time newest first. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like global_memory_list (different scope) and memory_search (filtered search).

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?

Implies scope ('current project') but does not explicitly say when to use this tool over alternatives like global_memory_list or memory_search. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions.

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