mimir_timeline

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description's 'Query' aligns with that. The description adds context about reconstructing history but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits or data retention. With annotations present, the description provides marginal extra value.

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 sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and recommended use. No superfluous information; 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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 optional parameters with defaults) and the availability of an output schema, the description covers the core use case. It does not mention pagination or time format details, but the schema handles those. Slight lack of completeness in explaining how filters combine.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description summarizes optional filtering by event type, category, or entity but does not add deeper semantics or syntax details beyond what the schema provides.

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 verb 'Query' and resource 'journal events' with time range and optional filters. It provides a specific use case ('reconstruct decision history') but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like mimir_journal or mimir_recall.

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 suggests using the tool to reconstruct decision history, implying a usage context. However, it does not specify when not to use it or mention alternative tools for related queries, leaving room for ambiguity.

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