memory_history

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Only states it retrieves versions, but lacks details on whether it requires authentication, rate limits, pagination, or any side effects. Minimal transparency for a retrieval operation.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff. Information is front-loaded: first sentence states purpose, second gives usage hint. 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?

Having an output schema reduces burden, but description still lacks details like required permissions, error cases (invalid ID), or behavior for empty chains. Adequate for a simple tool but could be more robust.

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 0% with no parameter descriptions in the input schema. Description adds meaning: 'Pass any version ID in the chain' clarifies that 'id' should be a version ID from a logical memory chain, not just any memory ID.

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?

Description clearly states 'Retrieve all versions of a logical memory', which is a specific verb+resource. Combined with the sibling tool names, it effectively distinguishes from tools like memory_read (single version) and memory_timeline (chronological order).

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?

Provides a usage hint 'Pass any version ID in the chain', but no explicit when-to-use or alternatives. Agent must infer context from sibling names without guidance on when to prefer this over memory_read or memory_timeline.

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