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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful workflow framing of a pre-edit risk check, but says nothing about what an empty result means, how results are ranked, or what 'sensitive' covers. With annotations carrying the behavioral load, this is adequate but thin.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the purpose stated before the call-to-action. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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-parameter read tool this covers the core question of what it returns at a high level ('risk/failure memories'). However, there is no output schema, so the description is the only place return shape could be conveyed, and it does not say what a hit looks like or how to interpret an empty response.

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 both 'repo' (including the list_repos fallback hint) and 'files' are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces that 'files' means paths about to be edited but adds no format or granularity guidance beyond that. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the resource ('risk/failure memories') and its scope ('for the files you're about to edit'), so an agent can tell this is a targeted pre-edit lookup rather than a generic memory search like the sibling search_memory. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

Gives a clear trigger condition: 'Call before editing sensitive files.' That is genuine when-to-use guidance tied to a workflow moment. It omits when-not-to-use and never points to search_memory or get_repo_context as alternatives for non-warning lookups.

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