validation_history_tool

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool retrieves historical data (a read operation) and mentions event types and a default limit, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or error handling. It adds some behavioral context but not comprehensively.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by useful context, and then detailed parameter and return information. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is complete enough. It explains the purpose, usage, parameters, and return value, and the presence of an output schema means it doesn't need to detail return values further. It covers all necessary aspects for effective 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It fully documents all three parameters: memory_id (required), event_type (optional with enum values), and limit (default value). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema, explaining usage and constraints clearly.

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 with specific verbs ('Get validation event history') and resources ('for a memory'), distinguishing it from siblings like memory_validate_tool (which performs validation) or memory_list_tool (which lists memories). It explains what validation events are and their relevance to confidence scores.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('Useful for understanding why a memory has its current confidence score'), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings. It implies usage for diagnostic purposes related to validation history.

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