memory_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond them: a hard cap of 100 revisions and the fact that soft-deleted/superseded entries are still returned, which affects how an agent interprets results. It stops short of describing ordering or pagination.

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A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the most decision-relevant detail (including deleted and superseded records) comes before the read completes.

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?

With only two parameters and no output schema, the definition is serviceable but leaves gaps: return ordering, whether deleted records are flagged in the response, and how the caller should interpret a truncated result at the 100 cap are all unaddressed.

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%, so the description must carry the load. 'Up to 100 revisions' implicitly explains the limit parameter's maximum, but neither the purpose of 'id' (memory id vs. chain id) nor the meaning of limit as a narrowing control is spelled out.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read ... revisions of a memory chain') plus the notable scope that deleted and superseded records are included. This clearly separates it from retrieval siblings like search_memories or memory_status, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the mention of deleted and superseded records signals an audit/version-history use case. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to alternatives such as memory_status or read_graph for current state.

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