Show memory history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and it does add value by disclosing snapshots on content-changing updates, unified line diffs, and newest-first ordering. However, it does not state that the operation is read-only, whether non-content changes are excluded, or any side effects or access requirements, leaving notable gaps.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the em-dash clause adds the snapshot rule without excess. The final 'Newest first' specifies ordering efficiently. 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?

There is no output schema, so the description must compensate for return expectations. It gives high-level behavior (diffs, newest first) but does not specify the shape of each version entry (e.g., timestamps, fields, diff format). The tool is simple, but an agent lacks precise output structure knowledge.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already defines each parameter clearly. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 names the action ('show version history'), the resource ('one memory'), and the key qualifier 'one memory' that distinguishes it from collection-oriented siblings like memory_list and memory_batch. It also implies it is not the current-state tool (memory_get) by emphasizing 'history'.

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 the use case—retrieving a memory's historical versions—but does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives like memory_get, nor does it provide any exclusions or alternative routing. The usage context is left to inference.

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