Get Project History

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

No annotations provided, but description reveals behavioral traits: ordered newest-first, defaults to checkpoint entries, response includes a render field. It doesn't mention permissions or side effects, but as a read tool, the description is reasonably transparent.

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?

Concise yet comprehensive; every sentence adds essential information. Purpose is front-loaded, followed by usage, defaults, ordering, companion tool, and response guidance. No fluff or repetition.

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?

Given no output schema, the description covers return format (render field), ordering, and default behavior. It distinguishes from a key sibling tool and provides enough context for correct invocation. Parameter documentation is complete via schema.

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%, but description adds value beyond schema by explaining the kind default and behavior, ordering, and the render field. This context helps the agent understand parameter implications without duplicating schema descriptions.

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 returns a chronological timeline of stored memories for a single project, with specific use cases like reviewing progress and assembling narratives. It distinguishes itself from sibling tool memory_recall by highlighting the chronological vs semantic difference.

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 ('review progress', 'answer where we left off') and contrasts with memory_recall ('chronological companion'). Provides defaults and options like kind='all'. Although it doesn't list all sibling tools, the guidance is sufficient for correct selection.

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