memory_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it only discloses that dormant entries are included. It says nothing about read-only semantics, ordering, whether a default limit truncates results, or what the response looks like. For a no-annotation tool this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 resource and scope front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is part of why other dimensions are thin.

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 three optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should say more about what comes back and how truncation/ordering behaves. As written, an agent knows it lists entries including dormant ones but little else needed to call it confidently.

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 limit, status, and profile are already fully documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description's mention of "含休眠中的" loosely relates to the status filter but adds no syntax, defaults, or interaction detail 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 states a concrete verb and resource ("列出记忆条目") and adds scope (includes dormant entries), so the basic action is clear. However, it never distinguishes itself from close siblings such as memory_recall, memory_stats, or memory_export, all of which could plausibly also 'view' memory. An agent must infer from the name alone which one to pick.

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?

"用于查看记忆库全貌" implies a browsing/overview use case, which is a reasonable hint about when to use it. But there is no explicit when-not guidance and no named alternative (e.g., use memory_recall for targeted lookup, memory_stats for counts), leaving the choice to inference.

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