supersession_chain

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions that results are 'oldest first,' but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, requires permissions, or has side effects. This is sufficient but not comprehensive.

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 concise with two sentences and a block of usage guidance. It front-loads the purpose and ends with a behavioral note. Every part adds value, though the usage guidance could be more structured.

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 complexity of a supersession chain and the presence of an output schema, the description does not explain what a supersession is or what the chain contains. It assumes prior knowledge, which may be insufficient for an agent unfamiliar with the domain.

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 one parameter 'memory_id' with no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description only states it's 'for a memory,' adding minimal meaning beyond the schema. It does not explain the format or source of the 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Show the supersession audit chain for a memory.' It uses a specific verb-resource pair and distinguishes itself from the sibling 'fact_supersession_chain' by specifying 'for a memory.'

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 provides explicit usage scenarios: 'investigating why a memory drops in retrieval score, auditing 'what changed' for a given fact, or tracing the lineage of a piece of knowledge across corrections.' It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the guidance is strong.

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