memory_get_for_files

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for side-effect transparency. The verb 'get' implies read-only behavior, but the description does not explicitly state that it performs no modifications, nor does it mention any auth/rate/side-effect details. It adds useful context about the content (conventions, gotchas) but falls short of explicitly disclosing non-mutation behavior.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the core purpose and adds a clarifying list of content types (conventions, gotchas, invariants). There is no redundant wording or filler; every word serves to explain the tool's function.

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-oriented tool with full schema coverage for both parameters and no output schema concerns (it's a get), the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the what, when, and what kind of results (memories relevant to files). It does not mention pagination behavior, but that is not critical given the limit parameter and the absence of an output schema requiring explanation.

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%, with both parameters (paths and limit) fully described in the schema, including details like 'Repo-relative file paths you are about to read or edit' and the limit range/default. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is maintained.

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 'Get all memories relevant to specific files' with a specific verb (get), a specific resource (memories for files), and a defined context (before editing). It distinguishes from sibling tools like memory_search (general search) and memory_write (writing) by explicitly tying to file paths and pre-edit usage.

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 provides a clear 'when to use' by saying 'before editing them,' which is a practical trigger. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, but the contextual purpose is strong enough for an agent to decide. Slight deduction for lacking explicit exclusions.

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