List memories

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond that: results are in id order, previews are returned unless `full` is true, and pagination continues by passing `next_cursor` as `cursor`.

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?

It is a single dense sentence with zero filler, front-loading the core operation and ordering before alternatives and return behavior. Every clause carries operational information.

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?

The tool is simple, has full schema coverage, has output schema support, and has clear annotations. The description still covers ordering, filtering, preview-vs-full behavior, pagination, and the sibling alternative, so nothing important is missing 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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents tag, full, limit, cursor, and prefix in detail. The description reinforces the important filter and pagination semantics but largely restates what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Browse memories') plus the ordering ('id order') and filtering options ('id prefix or tag'), and explicitly contrasts this with `search` for relevance ranking. An agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening the schema.

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?

It gives explicit routing: use this tool for browsing in id order, and use `search` when relevance ranking is needed. That is the key alternative among the listed sibling tools, and the condition for choosing it is stated directly.

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