hebbrix_entity_timeline

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description adds the meaningful 'bi-temporal' semantic (dual time dimensions — valid time and assertion time), clarifies the scope ('one entity'), and reveals the case-insensitive matching behavior. This enriches the agent's understanding beyond the structured 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?

Three tight sentences. The crucial purpose is front-loaded in sentence one, usage guidance in sentence two, and a valuable behavioral note (case-insensitivity) in the final sentence. Zero filler, every sentence earns its place.

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 moderate complexity (2 params, output schema present). The description covers core purpose and usage, and the case-insensitivity detail is useful, but collection_id is completely unaddressed, which is necessary for a complete picture. The output schema mitigates return-structure concerns, but the param gap makes this only minimally complete.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It partially documents entity_name ('for one entity', 'case-insensitive') but never mentions collection_id, its purpose, or its effect on the query. With two parameters and zero schema descriptions, this is a significant gap leaving the optional parameter undocumented.

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: 'Bi-temporal timeline for one entity: what facts were true about it and when.' This is a specific verb+resource (timeline of a single entity) and distinguishes it from siblings like hebbrix_get (current state) and hebbrix_list (multiple entities). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with hebbrix_history, which could be overlapping, preventing a 5.

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 gives explicit usage context: 'Use this for "what changed" / "what was true at time X" questions about a person, company, or thing.' This tells the agent when to invoke the tool. However, it doesn't state when NOT to use it or name alternative sibling tools, so the guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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