Version history

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

With readOnlyHint:true, the annotation already signals safety. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail: the result is ordered oldest first, includes authorship/confidence metadata, and describes the hash chain linking versions. This goes beyond the annotation and gives the agent an accurate model of the tool's output behavior.

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 a single, tightly packed sentence that front-loads the most important idea ('Every version of one key, oldest first') and then adds specific useful detail. No wasted words; every clause 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?

While the tool has only two parameters and no output schema, the description still leaves a critical gap: 'scope' is undefined. The return contents are described in terms of metadata and hash chain, but no structure is given, and the parameter semantics are incomplete. For an agent to invoke this tool correctly, it needs more context on what 'scope' represents.

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 has zero description coverage, so the description must explain both parameters. It refers to 'one key' but never clarifies the 'scope' parameter, which is required. The meaning of 'scope' remains ambiguous from both schema and description, leaving the agent without enough information to correctly construct parameters.

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 the tool provides every version of a specified key, ordered oldest first, and lists the included details (author, timestamp, confidence, hash chain). It is not a tautology and effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'remember' and 'recall' by focusing on version history, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'list'.

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 when to use the tool: when you need to see the full version history of a key, including metadata. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it, no mention of alternatives like 'recall', and no exclusions, so usage context is only inferred rather than stated.

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