memory_for_call_path

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states a simple return operation. It does not mention side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or the silent worktree behavior (which is only in the schema). This insufficiently informs the agent about the tool's safety and constraints.

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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. It efficiently states the core purpose without wasting words, though it omits important details that are penalized in other dimensions.

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?

Given the tool has three parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and only 33% schema description coverage, the one-sentence description is grossly incomplete. It does not clarify the meaning of edge_sequence_hash, the behavior of limit, or the return format, making it insufficient for correct invocation.

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 only 33% (worktree), and the tool description adds no parameter explanations. edge_sequence_hash and limit remain undefined, and the description fails to compensate for the low coverage, leaving the agent without crucial parameter context.

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 clearly states the tool returns repo memories bound to a specific call-path edge sequence, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like memory_for_symbol and memory_for_path by focusing on call-path edge sequences.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or alternative tools, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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