list_agent_memory

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safe-read nature is covered. The description adds the memory category types, but omits the `schedule_report` category present in the schema, which is a minor transparency gap.

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 no filler. The action is front-loaded and the return categories are listed efficiently. Every sentence 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?

The tool is a list operation with no output schema, so the description should convey more about the return structure or pagination, but it does not. It is also missing the `schedule_report` category, making it incomplete against 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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by mapping the return content to `fact`, `preference`, `instruction`, and `context`, but it does not mention `schedule_report` and does not clarify `agent_id` or `user_key` beyond the schema.

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 clearly identifies the action ('Lista') and the resource ('memórias persistentes de um agente'), and enumerates the return categories: facts, preferences, instructions, and context. It is distinct from the nearest sibling `delete_agent_memory`, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from `list_agent_history` or `get_session_history`.

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 guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like `list_agent_history`, `list_agent_sessions`, or `get_agent`. The description only states what it does, not the conditions under which it is the right choice.

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