History

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses return behavior in useful detail: every statement is returned oldest first, each with its beginning and ending beliefs, plus the current belief. It also adds the non-obvious edge case that forgotten items still retain history.

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 short and front-loads the core behavior before usage guidance and the forgotten-item edge case. The first sentence is dense and slightly abstract, but no sentence is clearly wasted.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains the return ordering and content, gives usage conditions, and covers the forgotten-item case. An agent has enough information to call it 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?

There is only one required parameter and the schema already has full description coverage, including an example. The main description does not add syntax or format details beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 resource and scope: a chronological history of statements about something remembered, including past and current beliefs. It is clear enough to distinguish from a simple recall, though it does not explicitly name or contrast with the sibling tools.

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 gives clear usage cues: when the user asks what changed, when, or why something is believed, and when showing a correction whole. It also notes that forgotten items still have history. It does not explicitly say when to prefer a sibling like diff instead.

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