Memory Timeline

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it describes what the tool does ('Shows what happened before and after'), it lacks critical behavioral details such as whether this is a read-only operation, what format the output takes, potential rate limits, or any side effects. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 extremely concise and well-structured with just two sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second elaborates on the scope. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary information.

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 that there's no output schema and no annotations, the description provides basic purpose but lacks completeness. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (e.g., list of observations, timeline format), error conditions, or behavioral constraints. For a tool with 3 parameters and no structured output documentation, the description should do more to compensate.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (anchorId, depthBefore, depthAfter) with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. According to the scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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's purpose: 'Get chronological context around a specific observation' with the specific action 'Shows what happened before and after the anchor observation.' It uses specific verbs ('Get', 'Shows') and identifies the resource ('chronological context', 'observation'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'memorix_session_context' or 'memorix_detail' which might also provide contextual information.

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 this tool: when you need chronological context around an observation. It specifies 'before and after the anchor observation,' which provides some contextual guidance. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives among the many sibling tools, leaving usage somewhat ambiguous.

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