memory_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description only adds the 'audited' scope and path/write_log behavior. It does not disclose ordering, pagination, or entry format, but the safety profile is already covered by 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?

A single concise bilingual sentence states the verb, resource, and key scoping option with no filler or 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?

For a simple read-only, zero-required-param tool with strong annotations, the description covers the main invocation choice (path vs. whole write_log). Slight gaps remain around return format and limit semantics, but they do not prevent correct invocation.

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 50%: path is documented, while limit only has a default. The description adds meaning for path ('or the whole write_log'), but it does not clarify the semantics of limit (e.g., maximum entries) beyond the schema default.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('audited change history' for a path or write_log). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like memory_get (current state), memory_search, and memory_stats.

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 purpose makes the use case inferable—history rather than current values—but there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over memory_get/memory_list or any exclusions. Usage guidance is implied by the name and description, not stated.

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