memory_history

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions displaying events (ADD/UPDATE/DELETE) but does not explicitly state the tool is read-only, nor does it disclose any permissions or side effects. This leaves behavioral aspects under-specified.

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?

Single sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose. No extraneous words; every part contributes meaning.

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 low complexity (one required parameter, output schema exists, no nested objects), the description provides sufficient context: it identifies the tool's function and the type of events reported. Output schema covers return values, so no additional description needed.

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 covers 100% of parameters with description 'Exact memory_id to inspect.' The tool description adds context about the history events shown, going beyond the schema. However, the parameter description itself is already clear, so the added value is moderate.

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 shows change history of a memory, specifying event types (ADD/UPDATE/DELETE). The verb 'Show' and resource 'change history' are specific and distinguish it from sibling tools like get_memory (current state) or search_memories.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like get_memory or search_memories. The description implies it's for history inspection, but lacks direct comparisons or when-not-to-use advice.

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