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

Beyond the read-only annotations, the description explains return behavior for directories (two levels deep with sizes) and files (line numbers), how `view_range` works, that encrypted notes are refused, and that file text is user-authored data. These are substantive behavioral details an agent needs before invoking the tool.

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 purpose and main behavior are front-loaded, and most sentences carry useful operational detail. Some contextual phrasing, such as sharing/editing behavior, is less essential, but the description remains dense rather than padded.

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 no output schema available, the description still explains return shapes for both directories and files, line-numbered file output, range selection, encrypted-note refusal, and data provenance. This is sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning about how paths map to static.md notes in /memories and how filename collisions are represented. It also reinforces that `view_range` applies only to files and uses -1 to read to the end.

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 and resource: reading agent memory markdown files under /memories. It also distinguishes this viewer from the mutating `memory` tool by stating that memory changes these files, and it clarifies that encrypted notes are refused, separating it from ciphertext-oriented siblings.

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?

Usage context is clear: use it to view /memories content, with separate behavior for directories and files, and `view_range` for line selection. It also implies edits belong to `memory` rather than this tool, though it does not explicitly enumerate alternatives such as `read_note`.

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