list_memories

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. The verb 'List' reasonably implies a read-only operation, and 'recent' hints at ordering, but the description does not disclose sorting semantics, pagination behavior beyond the skip parameter, or what exactly is returned. It is adequate for a simple list operation but not rich.

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 description is very short, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, and every sentence adds value. The parameter documentation is compact and immediately useful. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 two-optional-parameter listing tool, the description is mostly complete: purpose, parameters, and defaults are covered, and an output schema exists so return values need not be described. However, it lacks any guidance on choosing between list_memories and the sibling search tool, and it does not clarify what 'recent' means in terms of ordering.

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 document the parameters. It does so concisely: 'limit' is described as the number of memories to return and 'skip' as offset for pagination, adding practical meaning beyond the schema's bare types and defaults. This largely compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 states the action ('List') and the resource ('recent memories and notes from your Memwyre vault'). It is specific enough to understand the tool's core function, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tool search_memwyre, leaving some ambiguity about when listing is preferred over searching.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use list_memories versus search_memwyre, save_memory, or get_document. The description implies a simple listing use case but offers no exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions that would help an agent choose between this and alternatives.

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