memory_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the 'Read-only' clause adds little. The real added value is behavioral: the deterministic ordering (pinned, then importance, then most recently updated) and the paging contract including next_offset round-tripping, neither of which is derivable from annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the core behavior and ordering, then paging mechanics, then the alternative-tool pointer. Dense but every clause carries information; the only near-redundancy is the trailing 'Read-only', already implied by annotations.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by disclosing the return shape ({ data, paging: { limit, has_more, next_offset } }) and the offset round-trip, which is what an agent needs to page. Ordering and alternative routing are covered; minor gaps like default page size or namespace binding effects are left to the schema.

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%, so the schema already documents type, status, offset, cursor, namespace, limit and include_ids in detail. The description only restates type/status filtering and the offset-for-next-page pattern, adding no format or edge-case detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is correct.

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 ('Page through stored memories') and adds the exact ordering semantics (pinned, importance, recency) plus optional type/status filtering. It also names sibling tools (memory_search, memory_recall) as the meaning-based alternatives, so an agent can route correctly without opening another 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?

Explicitly tells the agent to use memory_search or memory_recall to find memories by meaning, which cleanly carves out this tool's niche as unfiltered enumeration. It stops short of covering the other read siblings (memory_get, memory_export) or stating when-not to use this tool, so it is clear but not exhaustive.

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