memory_list

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context the annotations do not: the set of browsable categories and the non-obvious meaning of source (memories citing that id). It omits pagination/limit behavior and the default of what=recent, which matters for a listing 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with a compact filter list; nothing is wasted. It is arguably over-compressed, using punctuation-heavy notation that takes a moment to parse, but it is not verbose.

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 an output schema present, return shape need not be explained, and the readOnly annotation covers safety. However, for a six-parameter listing tool with a default parameter and a limit, the description leaves the default and pagination behavior undocumented, so an agent cannot fully predict results without experimentation.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does for five of six parameters: it enumerates what values and names the kind, status, entity, and source filters, including the precise semantics of source. Only limit is left unexplained, keeping it just short of complete.

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?

"Browse" plus an explicit enumeration of what values (memories|entities|slots|proposals|recent) states a specific verb and resource set, which clearly separates it from memory_get / memory_search in the sibling list. It stops short of saying what a 'browse' returns versus a search hit, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus memory_search or memory_get; the agent must infer that a paginated listing is the browse path and a query is the search path. Only the filter semantics for source give any hint about selection conditions.

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