get_memory_history

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly says the result is a 'chronological list of all changes', which tells the agent what to expect. It does not describe verbose effects or failure behavior, but the read-only nature is clear from 'Get' and 'Returns'.

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 compact and front-loaded with the required parameter. The 'REQUIRED' and 'Returns' labels make it scannable, though the memory_id line slightly repeats the earlier phrasing.

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 simple read tool with an output schema, the required ID and return style are sufficient for basic invocation. The only notable gap is the undocumented verbose parameter and lack of explicit error semantics, but neither blocks correct use.

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%, so the description must add meaning. It adds UUID semantics for memory_id and marks it REQUIRED, but it entirely omits the verbose parameter, leaving its effect unexplained.

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 and resource: 'Get change history for a specific memory by ID.' The phrase 'change history' cleanly distinguishes this from get_memory, which would return the current state.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus siblings like get_memory or search_memories. There is no mention of alternatives, exclusions, or conditions that should trigger use.

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