hebbrix_entity_timeline

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds meaningful context: the tool is bi-temporal, operates on a single entity, and is case-insensitive. It doesn't discuss permissions or side effects, but for a read-style timeline query, the provided behavioral details are reasonably transparent.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage guidance and a relevant behavioral note (case-insensitivity). Every sentence earns its place, with no wasted words or redundant schema repetition.

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 clear purpose and an output schema, so the description doesn't need to detail return values. It explains the temporal nature and typical use cases, but it could be more complete by explaining the optional collection_id parameter and what types of entities are supported. Still, for a moderately complex query tool, the coverage is solid.

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 description coverage is 0%. The description implies the entity_name parameter by discussing 'one entity' and 'a person, company, or thing,' but it never explicitly names or explains the parameters, and collection_id is completely unaddressed. The description adds minimal value beyond the raw schema field names.

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 defines a bi-temporal timeline for a single entity, using specific verb-like phrasing ('what facts were true about it and when') and distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on temporal queries about one entity. It addresses 'what changed' and 'what was true at time X' questions, which is uniquely specific among the sibling tools.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool ('Use this for "what changed" / "what was true at time X" questions'), which provides clear context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so it misses the full when/when-not/alternatives guidance.

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