hebbrix_history

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

With no annotations, the description indicates it is a read operation showing history, but does not disclose potential limitations (e.g., pagination, performance implications) or require any special permissions.

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 concise with two sentences, front-loading the core action. It could be slightly more structured but remains efficient.

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 tool with one required parameter and an output schema, the description covers purpose and use case adequately but lacks parameter guidance and some behavioral details, leaving it slightly below 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?

Despite only one parameter (memory_id), the schema coverage is 0% and the description does not add any semantic guidance about what memory_id is or how to obtain it.

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 it shows 'version history of a memory' including supersessions, distinguishing it from siblings like hebbrix_get (current state). However, 'version history' could be more explicit about the structure (e.g., list of snapshots with timestamps).

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 mentions it is 'useful to see what a fact used to be', providing a use case. However, it does not explicitly compare with sibling tools or state when not to use this tool.

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