List Session Commits

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

The description discloses a notable side effect: 'Its poisoning gate may quarantine the newest eligible unsafe linked session summary.' This goes beyond the annotations' destructiveHint: true by specifying what may be quarantined. It also clarifies that the tool does not guess intent when no link exists, adding behavioral nuance beyond the structured fields.

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 concise at three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. The second and third sentences add important behavioral context about the poisoning gate and non-guessing behavior, though some jargon ('poisoning gate', 'remem') could be clearer. Overall, it earns its place without excessive length.

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 tool with an output schema and well-documented parameters, the description provides sufficient context by covering purpose, side effects, and return details. It lacks explicit usage guidance or exclusions, but given the presence of annotations and schema, the completeness is strong. The side-effect disclosure is particularly valuable.

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 already documents all parameters. The description does not add additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, aside from mentioning the return of link evidence and git metadata, which is output-oriented rather than parameter-oriented.

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 function: 'List git commits linked to a content session ID or remem memory session ID.' This uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('git commits'), scoped by session ID. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like lookup_commit by clarifying it returns link evidence and does not guess commit intent when no link exists.

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 usage for retrieving commits associated with a session, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no exclusions or alternative tool names mentioned, so the guidance is indirect rather than explicit.

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