memory_commit_lookup

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden, and it does so well: it discloses the return shape, the unrecorded-SHA result ({commit:null,sessions:[]}), the error on missing/empty sha, and negative scope (does not scan Git repos or prove authorship). It stops short of stating permission or auth requirements, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then edge cases, then alternatives. Each sentence carries distinct information, though the density makes it slightly long for a single-parameter read tool.

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, the description supplies the return structure and both edge-case outcomes, plus a clear statement of what the tool does not do. An agent has everything needed to call it 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% with a single required parameter, so baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by emphasizing a full SHA and documenting the error behavior for a missing or empty sha, which the schema does not state.

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 and resource: read the stored commit/session link for one full git commit SHA. It also names the sibling tools it is not (memory_commits, memory_timeline), so an agent can distinguish it without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use memory_commits to discover recorded links by branch or remote repo URL, or memory_timeline to read a linked session's observations. When-to-use-this vs alternatives is fully covered.

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