memory_for_path

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It only states the function without disclosing any behavioral details such as whether it's read-only, permission requirements, rate limits, or side effects. Even basic characteristics like read-only nature are not mentioned, leaving a significant gap.

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, direct sentence with no fluff. It is efficiently worded and front-loaded with the core action. However, given the missing information, it could have included more in the same concise style, so it doesn't fully earn a 5.

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?

With 3 parameters, low schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not specify the return format, how limit affects results, or any ordering/pagination behavior. The worktree parameter has a schema description, but the tool description omits mentioning it entirely, making the overall context incomplete.

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% (only worktree has a description). The tool description adds no information about the path or limit parameters, failing to compensate for the low coverage. The meaning of 'limit' and required 'path' are not clarified beyond their names.

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 associated with a path. It uses specific verb 'Return' and resource 'repo memories bound to a path', effectively distinguishing it from siblings like memory_for_symbol or memory_for_call_path.

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?

The purpose implies usage for path-based memory lookup, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like memory_for_symbol or memory_search. No exclusions or alternative guidance are provided, though the context of sibling tools makes the intended usage somewhat clear.

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