memory_file_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: up to 15 recent visible sessions, up to five observations per file, sessionId excludes the current session, wildcard project behavior, return shape (context block or empty string), and a real side effect — matching observations record retention access. That is unusually complete behavioral disclosure.

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 purpose and free of filler, but the middle sentence is a dense run-on packing caps, wildcard rules, return shape, and side effects together. Slightly harder to parse than an ideal definition, though every sentence earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description states the return shape (agentmemory-file-context block or empty string), all scoping rules, and the retention side effect. 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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds semantics the schema does not: the search window and per-file observation cap tied to the files parameter, the '*' cross-project/cross-agent intent, and the exclusion meaning of sessionId. Marginal but real added value.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Retrieve context for comma-separated file paths before editing or investigating them.' It names the sibling it is not (memory_recall for general topic searches), so an agent can distinguish it without opening either 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 states the triggering situation ('before editing or investigating them') and names the alternative with the condition that selects it ('use memory_recall for general topic searches'). The sessionId and project scoping notes further tell the agent how to configure the call.

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