nanomem_as_of

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does explain the core behavior: records after the as-of moment are ignored and superseded values are returned. This is transparent about the temporal semantics. It does not mention side effects, but as a query tool it is implicitly read-only. It adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The core function is front-loaded, followed by a clarifying nuance and two concrete use cases. Every sentence contributes value, and the structure is easy to parse.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description adequately explains purpose and usage. It lacks details on return format or potential error conditions, but given the simplicity and that the schema covers parameters, it is reasonably complete. The absence of output schema is mitigated by the tool's Q&A nature.

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% for all three parameters (query, as_of, top_k). The description adds no additional parameter-level details beyond what the schema already provides. It mentions the use of 'as_of' implicitly but doesn't expand on formats or behavior. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema handles all parameter 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 tool answers a question based on a past moment, using a specific verb ('Answer') and resource ('memory'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like nanomem_search by emphasizing temporal scoping, and provides a concrete example ('what did I think in March'). No ambiguity about its purpose.

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 gives a clear 'Use this for' clause with two concrete use cases, which tells the agent when to apply it. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, though the sibling context implies the distinction. It falls short of full 5 because no exclusions are stated.

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