threadmap_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. 'Show' implies a read-only operation, but side effects, output format, and error behavior are not addressed. It does disclose visible output components (drift scores, inflection points, branches), adding some behavioral clarity.

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 conveys the primary purpose and output content with no redundancy. Every phrase earns its place.

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 the simple schema (one parameter) and no output schema, the description explains the core output content adequately. It could be more complete by clarifying whether the output is a visual timeline or structured data, and by noting any dependency on an existing session, but it is largely sufficient for basic usage.

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 fully describes the only parameter, sessionId, with 'Session ID to show timeline for', providing 100% coverage. The description adds no extra parameter syntax or constraints, so the 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?

The description clearly identifies the action ('Show') and the resource ('full color-coded conversation timeline'), and explicitly mentions drift scores, inflection points, and branches. This distinguishes it from siblings like threadmap_fork or threadmap_branch_context.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided. The purpose implies a timeline visualization use case, but there is no mention of prerequisites or exclusions compared to other threadmap tools.

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