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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so 'Read-only' merely restates the structured data. Nothing is added about pagination, ordering, or how the workspace binding constrains results.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence plus a two-word safety note; there is no filler. It is appropriately sized for what it actually conveys, even if it conveys too little.

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?

With 4 parameters, 25% schema coverage, an opaque 'before' parameter, and no output schema, the definition leaves real gaps. An agent cannot tell how to page through revisions or what 'before' does without guessing.

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 only 25% (only workspace_id is documented in the schema). The description explains none of the shadowed parameters: 'path' defaults to '/' but its role for a memory lookup is unexplained, and 'before' (integer, minimum 1) has no stated meaning at all.

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 and resource ('List the earlier revisions of a memory') and scopes retrieval by id. It is distinguishable from pathrule_read_memory (current state) and pathrule_history_rule/skill (other resource types), though it never explicitly names those siblings.

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 phrase 'earlier revisions' implies you use it to inspect history, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. pathrule_read_memory guidance, no prerequisites, and no statement about what happens if the id has no history.

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