engram_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the expected return content — status categories (current, superseded, disputed), lineage, and the when/why of replacement — which is genuinely useful since no output schema exists. It says nothing about read-only nature, permissions, or failure modes, so it is partial rather than complete.

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 single sentence is compact and wastes no words, but it is a fragment rather than a front-loaded action statement, so the most important information (that this is a lookup/retrieval operation) is only implied.

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 one-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the return content reasonably well but omits read-only assurance, the parameter's nature, and any sibling disambiguation. It is minimally viable rather than complete given the crowded namespace.

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% on a single required parameter, memory_id, whose format and meaning are never described. The phrase 'a memory's status' implies the tool operates on one identified memory, which is enough for an agent to map the parameter, but no syntax or ID-format detail compensates for the empty 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 names the resource and its facets (a memory's status, lineage, timing, reason), so the agent can infer it retrieves version-history information. However it is a noun-phrase fragment with no verb, and it never distinguishes this from siblings such as engram_replay, engram_audit, or engram_get_drawer, so the exact action is left to inference.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no stated preconditions, and no mention of any alternative tool. In a toolset crowded with overlapping memory-inspection siblings (engram_replay, engram_audit, engram_get_drawer), the absence of routing guidance is a real gap.

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