Ultrabrain History

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

Annotations already cover idempotentHint, readOnlyHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds 'recent' and 'normalized' but provides no additional behavioral details such as data freshness bounds, ordering, or pagination. It does not contradict 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?

Extremely concise single sentence, no fluff. However, it may be overly terse, sacrificing completeness for brevity. Still, it 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?

No output schema, many sibling tools, domain-specific terminology ('normalized thought records') left undefined. Does not explain what 'recent' means or how to properly use the tool. Incomplete for a complex ecosystem.

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% (only session_id documented). The description does not explain the 'limit' parameter or add meaning beyond schema fields. It fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 action ('Return'), the resource ('normalized thought records'), and the context ('for a session'). This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like ultrabrain_analyze or ultrabrain_merge.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or context for selecting it over siblings. The description only states what it does, not when to apply it.

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