list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the sort order but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, whether pagination exists, or what fields are returned for each entry. These are only lightly implied by the word 'List'.

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?

One concise sentence front-loads the core verb and resource, then appends the sort order. Every word adds information and there is no irrelevant detail.

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 listing operation, the description plus the fully documented schema are sufficient to invoke the tool correctly. The only missing context is explicit guidance about when to prefer this over search/recall, which is a secondary gap given the tool's low complexity.

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?

All three parameters have descriptive schema entries (100% coverage), so the description adds no additional param semantics. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema already documents tag, limit, and folder.

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'), resource ('memory entries'), scope ('the workspace'), and ordering ('most recently updated'), which fully clarifies what the tool does. This distinguishes it from sibling listing tools such as list_tags and list_themes, which target different resources.

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 intended use is stated directly: list memory entries in the current workspace, with optional tag/folder filters. It does not mention alternatives like search or recall, so some selection nuance is left to the agent, but the core use case is clear.

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