memory_alias_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds beyond that by describing the result payload (canonical/alias pairs plus a total) and flagging the duplicate-alias hazard it helps avoid. It does not discuss size limits or ordering, but that is minor against the annotation coverage.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler; the output shape is front-loaded and the usage rationale follows immediately. Every clause earns its place.

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 parameters, no output schema, and read-only annotations, the description is nearly complete: it states what comes back and why to call it. It stops short of noting pagination, ordering, or behavior on an empty alias set, which a caller might still want to know.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing in the schema to explain and the description correctly says nothing about inputs, though it also does not mention any implicit filtering (e.g. scope of 'your memory').

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?

Specific verb (list) plus specific resource (entity aliases), and it even names the return shape: {canonical, alias} pairs plus a total. It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling memory_alias_add, so an agent can tell them apart without opening either 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?

Gives an explicit precondition ('Check here before memory_alias_add') and a concrete reason ('so you do not re-point an existing alias by accident'), naming the alternative tool it complements. Nothing about when to reach for this versus memory_alias_add 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.