memory_commit_lookup

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return payload (commit metadata and linked sessions), which is useful, but does not state read-only safety, authorization needs, pagination, or whether multiple sessions are common. It is adequate but leaves meaningful behavioral 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?

Two tightly written sentences with zero waste. The action and input are front-loaded, followed immediately by the return description.

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 one-parameter read lookup with full schema coverage, the description explains what it returns since no output schema exists. It could be slightly richer about session multiplicity or SHA requirements, but it is complete enough for correct invocation.

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 lone parameter is already documented as the full git commit SHA. The description only echoes that the lookup is 'given its SHA' and adds no format or validation detail beyond the schema, fitting the baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb (look up), resource (agent sessions that produced a git commit), and required input (SHA). It distinguishes itself clearly from siblings like memory_commits by focusing on session provenance for a single commit rather than listing commits broadly.

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 implies usage when you have a commit SHA and need the producing sessions, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as memory_commits or memory_sessions, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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