engram_kg_timeline

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implicitly discloses a read-only nature and a chronological ordering, but says nothing about permissions, pagination, result size limits, or what happens for an entity with no triples. Useful context, yet a notable gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no redundant or wasted wording — exactly the right size for the information it conveys.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the minimum is arguably met, but the description does not describe the return shape (triple format, timestamp fields, ordering direction) that an agent would need to interpret the 'chronological timeline' it promises.

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% and there is a single required 'entity' parameter, so the description must compensate but adds almost nothing beyond the phrase 'for an entity'. Since the lone parameter is an obvious identifier and its meaning ('the entity whose triples are returned') is inferable, a 3 is fair, but no format or matching details are given.

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?

States a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('chronological timeline of all triples for an entity'), which is clearly distinguishable from kg_query (point query) and kg_add/invalidate (mutations). However, it never explicitly contrasts itself with the nearest sibling, engram_kg_query, so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and does not mention alternatives such as engram_kg_query or engram_history. An agent has to infer from the name alone when a timeline view is preferable to a query.

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