list_at_time

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

No annotations are provided, so the description is the sole source of behavioral info. It states that only canonical memories at a timestamp are listed and that superseded ones are excluded, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or error handling.

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 that front-load the core purpose and immediately provide usage guidance. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 existence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values, but it lacks specifics on parameter formats (e.g., 'at' timestamp) and edge cases. It is adequate for a simple list tool but leaves gaps.

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 description adds meaning to 'entity' and 'type' parameters by stating they filter results, but does not explain the 'at' parameter format or the 'limit' parameter's role. With 0% schema coverage, the description partially compensates.

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 lists canonical memories at a given time, with a specific verb and resource. It implies distinction from siblings like 'facts_at_time' by focusing on memories, but does not explicitly differentiate.

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 explicitly provides a 'USE THIS WHEN' scenario and lists use cases: audit, debugging, historical questions. It also describes filtering options and what is excluded (superseded memories), but does not mention when not to use or alternatives.

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