memory_project_scope

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully clarifies that the tool reads local state and makes no memory-provider calls, but it does not describe permissions, failure behavior, or what the returned mapping/policy looks like.

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?

The definition is two front-loaded sentences with no filler. The purpose is stated first, followed by the key non-provider behavioral constraint.

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 local read with one optional, fully documented parameter, the description gives enough context to call the tool correctly. The main omission is that, with no output schema, it does not describe the return shape beyond naming the data categories.

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?

The single optional parameter is fully described in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides for 'cwd'.

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 states a specific verb ('Read') and precise resource ('local project bank mapping and session access policy for a workspace'). It also differentiates itself from provider-backed siblings by noting 'Makes no memory-provider calls', though it does not name specific alternatives.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives. The negative behavioral note ('no memory-provider calls') hints at a local-only scope but does not tell an agent when to choose this tool over memory_recall or memory_provider_status.

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