memory_list_revisions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool surfaces supersede/amend/revert/delete events from a specific log table, but it does not explicitly state that it is a read-only operation, does not mention permission requirements, rate limits, or whether it returns historical data only. The description lacks critical behavioral context.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose in the first sentence, then provides structured details in a docstring format. It is concise with no redundant information, though the Args section could be integrated more seamlessly.

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 tool has three parameters, none required, and an output schema exists, the description provides sufficient context for a list/filter tool. It explains the log events and filtering options. The absence of required parameters reduces complexity, making this description complete enough for 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%, but the description compensates well by listing each parameter with its purpose: 'memory_id: Filter to a specific memory id (empty = all),' 'limit: Max results (default 20),' 'revision_type: Filter by type: supersede, amend, revert, delete (empty = all types).' This adds meaning beyond the schema, which only defines type and default.

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 'List revision-log entries for a memory or across the store' with a specific verb ('list') and resource ('revision-log entries'). It also defines the domain (memory revision log) and distinguishes from sibling tools like memory_search or memory_recall, which serve different purposes.

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 usage for auditing ('so the operator can audit what changed') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. The parameter descriptions provide some filtering guidance but no exclusions or comparisons to siblings.

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