memory_lineage

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden. It indicates a read-only style operation by using 'Return', and discloses what is returned (full history, every prior version, chain of updates). However, it doesn't mention limitations, error behavior, or any side effects, so transparency is partial.

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 consists of two concise, front-loaded sentences. The first states the action and object, the second provides use cases. No redundant or vague filler.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and usage adequately. It explains what is returned and when to use it, though it omits edge-case behavior like invalid IDs or ordering. Given the low complexity, this is sufficiently complete.

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 coverage is 100%: the parameter memory_id is described in the schema as 'UUID of any memory in the lineage chain'. The tool description adds no further parameter semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 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 specifies the verb 'Return' and the resource 'supersession history of a memory', with additional detail about every prior version and the chain of updates. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like recall or fact_history by focusing on lineage and supersession.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'how did this guidance number evolve over time?' or 'investigating why a memory was replaced'. This gives clear context, though it does not mention when-not-to-use or alternative tools explicitly.

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