memory_timeline

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

Without annotations, the description discloses key behavior: it is a read-only browsing tool with cursor-based pagination and limited return fields. It does not mention side effects, auth requirements, or rate limits, but these are implied by the read-only nature.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, front-loading the action and pagination method, then the return type. No unnecessary words.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description covers core purpose and return format but lacks details on pagination mechanics, parameter interactions, and output structure, leaving some gaps for agent understanding.

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?

The input schema has 5 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain any parameter beyond hinting at cursor-based pagination. Parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the tool fails to add meaningful semantics beyond the 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 clearly states the verb 'browse', the resource 'memories', and distinguishes from siblings by specifying chronological order and cursor-based pagination. It also indicates what is returned (titles and metadata only).

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 implies usage for browsing memories in order, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like memory_read or memory_recall, or when not to use it.

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