synapse_timeline

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the ordering ('oldest first') and the entity scoping behavior ('Scope to one entity, or None for the global timeline'). It does not explicitly state that it is read-only, but the word 'view' implies it. It adds useful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 a compact docstring with a clear opening purpose, followed by parameter explanations and a returns line. Every sentence earns its place; it is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no filler.

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?

The tool is simple (two optional parameters) and an output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values. It covers both parameters and the ordering behavior, which is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly. It does not mention edge cases or error handling, but these are not critical for a read-only timeline view.

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%, so the description must fully explain the parameters. It does so: 'entity' is described as scoping to one entity or the global timeline, and 'limit' is described as max rows with a default of 50. This adds meaningful semantics that the schema lacks.

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 states 'Chronological view of remembered facts' which clearly indicates a specific resource (remembered facts) and a specific behavior (chronological ordering). It is not a tautology and is distinguishable from siblings like synapse_recall or explore_connections by its explicit chronological focus, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 when a chronological overview of facts is needed, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it reference any sibling tools. The context is inferred from the wording rather than stated directly.

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