memory_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating what each list entry contains (domain, chunk count, mtime) and that results can be filtered and limited, but it does not disclose ordering, wildcard semantics, or any upper bound on limit. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The core action and result fields are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the parameter capabilities fit in the second. The bilingual repetition (Chinese) roughly doubles the length but is a deliberate localization choice; the English portion alone is tight with no filler.

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 simple read-only list tool with two optional defaulted parameters and annotations covering safety, the description is close to sufficient: it states the purpose, entry contents, and parameter roles. The remaining gaps—what domain="*" means, whether the domain filter is exact or wildcard, and result ordering—are material for correct invocation, keeping this at the minimum-viable level.

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 compensate for the bare schema. It does add high-level meaning by mapping 'domain' to a filter and 'limit' to a cap on returned entries, which an agent can connect to the schema defaults ("*", 200). However, it leaves the matching behavior of domain unspecified (exact vs glob) and does not state what the limit default or maximum behavior entails, so compensation is partial.

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 names a specific verb ('List') and resource ('indexed files') and enumerates the per-entry fields (domain, chunk count, mtime), giving an agent a concrete idea of the operation and result shape. It does not explicitly differentiate from nearby siblings such as memory_stats or memory_domains, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives; with ten siblings like memory_search, memory_get, and memory_stats, an agent must infer from the name that 'list' means enumeration. The filter/limit note hints at usage for slicing results, but there are no exclusions, prerequisites, or explicit conditions for choosing this tool.

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