mnemosyne_agent_files

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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=true. The description goes well beyond that by explaining output shape ('Paths and timestamps only'), provenance labels ('recorded' vs 'from a command'), the reliability caveat ('may never have completed'), and scope ('spans every installed harness'). This is rich behavioral context that helps the agent interpret results safely.

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-loads the core purpose and ordering, then packs necessary caveats (paths/timestamps only, provenance explanation, unreliability warning) into a compact paragraph. Every sentence earns its place; no filler or repetition.

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 three optional params and no output schema, the description explains what is returned ('paths and timestamps', session, agent, how it is known) and why it is useful. Combined with the fully documented schema, an agent has everything it needs to call and interpret 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 description coverage is 100% (limit, project, contains are all documented with types and constraints), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already says, which is acceptable.

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 ('List the files other agent sessions wrote or edited recently'), gives ordering ('newest first'), and names the exact use case ('see what another session has already touched'). It is clearly distinguished from siblings by targeting agent-written files, which no other mnemosyne_* tool covers.

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 says when to use it ('Use it to see what another session has already touched before you edit the same area'). It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it over unrelated siblings like mnemosyne_memory_query or mnemosyne_agent_list.

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