list_memory_revisions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers almost nothing: no indication that it is read-only, whether results are paginated or ordered, how many revisions are returned, or what "permitted" actually restricts. The only signal, permission-scoped visibility, is cryptic rather than explanatory.

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 short phrase, so it is not bloated, but brevity here is under-specification rather than efficiency. Nothing is front-loaded because there is essentially no content to front-load.

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?

For a required-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies none of the missing context: not the parameter meaning, not the return shape, not the relationship to restore_memory_revision. It is not sufficient to call the tool correctly.

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 has one required parameter (memory_id) with 0% description coverage, and the description never mentions it. There is no hint that the call must target a specific memory, leaving the sole input undocumented in both structured and natural-language form.

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?

"Inspect permitted historical snapshots" gestures at a read of revision history but never states the resource (memory revisions) or that it is scoped to a single memory. An agent must infer from the tool name alone that this lists prior versions of a memory, and the sibling restore_memory_revision is never distinguished.

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 statement of when to call this versus list_memories, get_memory, or restore_memory_revision, and no prerequisites. Only vague implication that it is for looking at history; the word "permitted" hints at filtering but does not explain it.

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