List recently remembered items

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses ordering (newest first), chronological (not relevance) nature, and conditionality of some item types. It implies read-only behavior through 'list' but doesn't explicitly state safety. This is solid coverage beyond the schema, though it could mention the return format or potential errors.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loads the main action, then details item types, and finishes with a comparison. It is information-dense with minimal fluff. Could be slightly tighter by trimming the category list, but it's well-structured and efficient.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description conveys what the tool does, scope, and ordering. It doesn't describe the shape of returned items (e.g., timestamps, types), which might be needed, but given the simple purpose and full schema coverage, it is nearly complete. Minor gap on return structure prevents a 5.

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 both limit and projectRoot are already well documented. The description adds no param-specific clarifications beyond the schema; it reinforces the overall behavior (e.g., 'newest first') but doesn't explain how limit interacts with ordering. 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 the exact purpose: listing the most recently remembered items for a NexusMem-tracked repository, and enumerates the item types. It explicitly contrasts with search_memory by noting it is chronological, not relevance-ranked, so the tool is unambiguously distinguished from its sibling.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus an alternative: 'use search_memory instead for a specific question.' It also notes conditional inclusion ('if enabled' for certain data types), clarifying scope. This is direct and actionable.

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