memory_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses output modes, ordering (oldest→newest), included metadata (writer/session, transaction time, valid time, age), and the semantic intent. It does not explicitly state read-only status or pagination/limits, but the history-reading nature and detailed outputs are 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?

The description is compact and well-structured: conditional modes first, then return formats. Every sentence adds useful information without redundancy or fluff.

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 (two modes), the description covers both behaviors, their inputs, and return structures. It lacks explicit comparison to sibling tools or mention of potential edge cases, but the presence of an output schema and the detailed descriptions make it sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clearly explains the conditional role of `attribute` (with vs without) and how it changes the output. The `entity` parameter is less detailed but contextually understandable as the target memory entity. Overall, it provides substantial semantic meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 precisely defines two modes of operation: with `attribute` it returns the version history of a specific fact slot, and without it returns the entity's causal chain. It explicitly states the returned fields and differentiates from a plain memory retrieval by focusing on historical/causal data.

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?

Clear context is provided: use with `attribute` for slot-level change history, use without for entity-level causal chain. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives among the many sibling tools (e.g., memory_get, memory_recent) or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of full alternatives guidance.

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