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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the operation is a read-only 'View', returns every predecessor and successor, accepts any memory ID in the chain, and preserves chronological order. Minor gaps remain around error handling for invalid IDs, but the core behavior is transparent.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by concrete usage examples, then the input contract. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy or fluff.

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 an output schema exists, the description need not enumerate return fields. It fully explains the chain concept, input flexibility, ordering, and realistic audit scenarios, making the tool self-contained for an 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?

The input schema already describes memory_id as 'Any memory ID in the chain' with 100% schema coverage, so the description provides no additional parameter meaning beyond reinforcing that fact. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb ('View') and resource ('full supersession chain for a memory'), with ordering clarified as oldest to newest. Clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like memra_supersede by focusing on audit/history rather than mutation.

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?

Provides explicit use cases: auditing evolution, answering 'why did we change X?', understanding prior reasoning, or investigating superseded_by references. It gives clear context but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it.

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