history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses the key behavioral traits: the word 'ledger' positions this as a read-only view rather than a mutation, and the description states exactly what results contain (every create/merge/assert/supersede/forget event with actor and time). It does not disclose ordering, pagination semantics of the limit parameter, or what happens when no filters are supplied, so it is not fully 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?

A single 23-word sentence with zero filler. The central concept ('provenance ledger') is front-loaded, followed by the scope ('entity and its relations or a relation') and the content details (event types, actor, time). Every clause earns its place and nothing needs to be cut.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, the description must compensate heavily; it successfully conveys the core purpose and what the returned events contain. But an agent cannot determine the meaning of the limit and dataset parameters, whether results are ordered, or the shape of an individual event record — gaps that matter because there is no output schema to fill them. Adequate for invoking with entity or relation_id, incomplete for full correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for four undocumented parameters. It maps two of them — 'entity' and 'relation' clearly correspond to the entity and relation_id parameters. However, limit (pagination) and dataset (scoping) receive no explanation at all in either the schema or the description, leaving those invocations opaque. This is meaningful partial compensation but not sufficient for a 4.

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 identifies a specific resource (a provenance ledger scoped to an entity, its relations, or a single relation) and enumerates the exact events contained (create, merge, assert, supersede, forget) plus the captured fields (actor, time). This is much more specific than a bare 'history' and distinguishes the tool from session-oriented siblings like session_timeline. It stops short of 5 because it never explicitly names an alternative tool for contrast, relying on the reader to infer the distinction.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this tool is used to trace what happened to a specific entity or relation over time, since the scope targets knowledge-graph elements and the operation list covers mutations. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no sibling tool (e.g., recall, session_timeline) is named as an alternative, leaving the agent to guess which history-like tool fits.

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