Memory files and imports

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool never returns file contents, which is a significant behavioral guarantee. It explains the scope (all memory files loaded every session) and that it only reports sizes and import graph, adding context beyond safe operation.

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?

Two well-structured sentences. The first sets the context (what files and the hidden cost), the second clearly states what the tool reports and what it excludes. Every clause adds value, no redundancy.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: the subject files, the load mechanism, the output (sizes and import graph), and the explicit exclusion of contents. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters; it appropriately focuses on output and scope.

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 reports sizes and import graph of memory files, with a specific verb ('Reports') and resource (CLAUDE.md/AGENTS.md and imports). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on memory file loading costs.

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 when to use it: to understand the hidden cost of memory files (including @import pull-ins). It explicitly states what it does not do (never file contents), which provides a clear boundary, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions.

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