entry_history

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool returns commit messages, authors, and timestamps, which is useful context for a read operation. However, it does not state whether it is strictly read-only, if there are any auth or rate limitations, or any side effects, which is a gap given the lack of annotation coverage.

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, well-structured sentence that ends with a colon, implying the result, and front-loads the key information (provenance). Every word earns its place; there is zero fluff or redundancy.

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?

The tool has a simple signature with a single parameter and an output schema, so the description does not need to detail return formatting. However, it does not explicitly state what constitutes a 'memory' or how the entry_id is tied to git history, which could be important for correct invocations in a broader context. Overall, it's adequate but leaves a few semantic gaps.

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 covers 0% of parameter meaning, so the description must explain the 'entry_id' parameter. It does not mention what format or identifier is expected, or how it relates to the memory entry. The description only alludes to 'this memory' without clarifying the parameter, leaving agents to infer from the schema's bare title.

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 a specific purpose: to retrieve the provenance (git commit history) of a given memory entry, specifying who, when, and why. It effectively distinguishes itself from siblings like 'recall' or 'get_memory' by focusing on commit-level history rather than content or status.

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 (when you need to inspect the commit history of an entry) but does not explicitly state when to use it vs. alternatives like 'git_blame_context' or 'why_code'. It does not provide exclusions or conditions for when not to use it, leaving some inference to the agent.

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