memory_temporal_recall

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the 'Read-only' phrase is redundant. However, the description adds valuable behavioral detail by explaining that as_of bounds the records side and changed_since filters the events side, clarifying the dual-sided temporal semantics beyond the annotations.

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 a single, efficient sentence with a colon introducing the key mechanics. Every phrase carries meaning, and the front-loaded 'Time-travel recall' immediately conveys the tool's niche. No wasted words.

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 output schema exists, return value details are not needed. The description covers the core behavior (the two bounds) and mentions the read-only nature, which aligns with annotations. It omits discussion of cue and limit, but the schema provides those. Overall, it is complete for a read-only temporal query tool.

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 already covers all parameters (100% coverage), giving a baseline of 3. The description adds meaning by mapping as_of to the records side and changed_since to the events side, helping the agent understand how these parameters relate to the two outputs. This semantic grouping exceeds the schema's individual descriptions.

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 with a specific verb ('recall') and resource ('records' and 'events') while uniquely specifying temporal scoping via 'as_of bounds records, changed_since filters events'. This distinguishes it from siblings like memory_recall and memory_search by emphasizing its temporal nature.

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 temporal use cases but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings like memory_recall or events_query. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the temporal keywords.

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