memory_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses that history is preserved on every update and that the operation is non-destructive. This addresses safety and system behavior. However, it does not mention return format, ordering, or error handling, though an output schema exists.

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 exceptionally concise: one sentence for the action, one for safety context, and a clean args block. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 simple one-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema, the description covers the core purpose, the parameter, and safety. It leaves a minor ambiguity about whether the current version is included in the history, but the output schema likely clarifies this. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for the tool's complexity.

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 zero description coverage. The description provides a clear definition: 'The memory whose edit history to retrieve.' This adds meaning beyond the bare schema and fully covers the single parameter.

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 uses a specific verb ('Show') and a clear resource ('prior versions of a memory'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_memory (current version) and recall (query). It also adds context about history being preserved non-destructively, which reinforces its purpose.

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 (retrieve edit history) but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like get_memory or as_of. No exclusions or alternative guidance is provided, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name and siblings.

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