列出长期记忆

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds only usage framing and no behavioral detail beyond it – nothing about pagination behavior, default result size, or what a filtered empty result means. With annotations carrying the safety burden, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

A single compact sentence with the filtering scope front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though it is arguably too terse given the parameter surface it needs to support.

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 tool with 8 parameters, no output schema, and 13% schema coverage, the description should explain the filtering and pagination model. Instead it offers only a high-level purpose, so an agent lacks enough to invoke it correctly against ambiguous siblings like memory_recall.

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 only 13% (essentially just the internal _memoryRequestKey), so the description must compensate and does not. The vague phrase '按条件' gestures at filtering but never explains tag, kind, query, status, namespace, or the limit/offset pagination semantics, leaving 6+ meaningful parameters undocumented.

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 clear verb+resource: '按条件查看记忆' (view memories by condition), which reads as a filtered list operation. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like memory_recall or memory_get_context, which also retrieve memories, so an agent cannot tell which retrieval tool to pick from the description alone.

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?

Provides some usage context ('适合管理、核对或让用户确认系统记住了什么' – managing, verifying, or user confirmation), which implies when it is useful. But it never names alternatives (memory_recall, memory_get_context, memory_stats) or states when NOT to use it, so routing among the memory retrieval siblings is left to inference.

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