nanomem_changes

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It reveals ordering (oldest first) and that no query is needed, but omits details about pagination, limit semantics, or whether the operation is read-only (though implied by 'learned'). It does not address side effects or permissions.

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?

Two concise sentences that front-load the core function and give practical examples. No wasted words; every sentence 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?

For a simple listing tool with three well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and ordering. It lacks explicit mention of return format or error handling, but given the simplicity, it is reasonably complete. The absence of annotations is partially mitigated by the descriptive text.

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%, so parameters are already documented. The description adds the concept of a time window but does not elaborate on the meaning of 'since' or 'until' beyond the schema. It provides no extra value for parameter interpretation.

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 retrieves memory changes within a time window, ordered oldest first, and gives concrete example use cases like 'what did I tell you since last week'. It differentiates from search by noting 'no query needed', making its role distinct among siblings.

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?

It provides explicit scenarios for use ('to catch up on what changed while away') and implies a no-filter, broad overview use case. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools like nanomem_search for filtered queries.

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