memory_get_for_files

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the content type (conventions, gotchas, invariants) and implies a read-only operation via 'Get', but lacks details on limits, pagination, or error behavior. The description adds some context beyond the tool name but leaves gaps.

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, information-dense sentence that leads with the tool's purpose. No redundant or irrelevant 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?

The tool is simple with two parameters and no output schema, but the description covers the core purpose and usage. It lacks information about the second parameter and potential output formatting, but the essential information for an agent to decide is present.

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?

The schema provides descriptions for 'paths' but not 'limit'. The description reinforces that paths refer to files about to be edited, adding contextual meaning. However, it does not address the 'limit' parameter, so half of the parameters lack semantic explanation.

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 tool retrieves memories relevant to specific files, with the specific purpose of informing edits. It distinguishes from sibling tools like memory_search by focusing on file-specific memory retrieval. The phrase 'before editing them' adds a clear use context.

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 includes 'before editing them', which provides clear guidance on when the tool should be used. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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