memory_history

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only indicates a read-style operation ('View') and says nothing about the shape of the returned history, ordering, pagination, or how 'previous edits' are represented.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is easy to parse and economical, though it may be too terse to convey all necessary behavioral and parameter guidance.

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 tool, the description names the resource and indicates the action, and the required title parameter is sufficient to invoke it. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the lack of return-format and limit semantics leaves clear gaps for an agent trying to use the results correctly.

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 title parameter is already documented in the schema, but the limit parameter has no description and the tool description adds no meaning for it. With 50% schema coverage, the description needed to compensate for the undocumented parameter and did not.

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 states a specific verb ('View') and a precise resource ('version history of a specific memory note'), with the clarifying parenthetical 'previous edits'. It is immediately clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools such as memory_timeline or memory_audit.

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 conveys a clear use case: checking the previous edits of one specific note. It gives enough context for when an agent should invoke it, though it provides no explicit exclusions or alternative routing to sibling tools.

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