get-memory-bank-info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool reads files and returns formatted content, which is basic behavioral information. However, it lacks details on error handling (e.g., if the directory doesn't exist), performance implications (e.g., for large directories), or output structure beyond 'formatted content.'

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 in the first sentence, followed by three bullet points that efficiently elaborate on scope, output, and usage without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is clear and concise.

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's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete: it covers purpose, usage timing, and output intent. However, without annotations or an output schema, more detail on the return format (e.g., structure of 'formatted content') would enhance completeness for the agent.

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%, so the schema fully documents the single parameter 'rootPath' with examples. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, maintaining the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Read and return all Memory Bank file contents'), identifies the resource ('.md files in the memory-bank directory'), and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on reading formatted content rather than initialization or updates. The comparison to 'codelf's get-project-info' further clarifies the purpose.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Use this tool at the beginning of each work session.' This directly tells the agent when to invoke it, and the mention of sibling tools (init-memory-bank, update-memory-bank) implies this is for reading existing content rather than creating or modifying it, though not explicitly stated.

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