memory_commits

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses result ordering, the default (100) and hard cap (500) on limit, the return key ({commits}), and that excluded ambient sessions are stripped from session links. It omits auth requirements and error behavior, 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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with what is listed and how it is ordered, then filters, then the return shape, then routing. No filler and nothing misplaced.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers filtering, ordering, pagination limits, return shape, and the storage model behind the results. There is no output schema, so return-value explanation in prose is appropriate and 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine semantics by specifying that the branch filter is an exact match and that repo filters on remote URL rather than a path or name. The limit default/cap is also restated in prose, which is redundant with the schema but harmless.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('List recorded Git commit/session links') plus ordering ('newest linkedAt first'), and distinguishes itself from the sibling memory_commit_lookup by use case. An agent can select it without opening the 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?

It explicitly names the alternative tool and the condition that selects it: 'Use memory_commit_lookup when you already know a commit SHA.' It also clarifies that this reads stored links rather than scanning Git repositories, which rules out a plausible misuse.

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