memory_commands_tool

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It explains key behavior: only tagged command memories are returned, limit controls result count, and project is auto-detected from git root when omitted. It does not discuss sort order or behavior when no git root exists, but the listed behavior is meaningful and non-misleading.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then uses a compact Args block for parameters. Every sentence contributes useful information and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 listing tool with an output schema and no required parameters, the description covers the main invocation behaviors and parameter meanings. It could add one sentence about when to prefer this over memory_list_tool, but nothing essential for a basic call is missing.

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 schema only provides types and defaults, so the description adds essential semantics: limit is the maximum items to return, and project is an optional path auto-detected from git root. Both parameters are clearly explained beyond the raw schema.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List command outcome memories (gotchas tagged with cmd:*).' It clearly identifies the exact subset of memories this tool manages, which distinguishes it from generic siblings like memory_list_tool and memory_search_tool.

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 description implies the right context by saying it lists command outcome memories, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. It gives clear context but no direct routing guidance.

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