memory_timeline

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the content categories of the timeline, which is genuinely useful, and '查看' implies a read-only operation, but it never states ordering, retention window, or whether results are newest-first — traits an agent needs to interpret the output.

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?

A single short sentence with the resource front-loaded and the category list parenthetical and compact. No waste, though the brevity leaves the gaps noted elsewhere.

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 one-optional-parameter read tool this is nearly adequate, but with no output schema and no annotations the description should say something about the shape of a timeline entry (timestamp? ordering?) — it only names the event categories, leaving the return format to inference.

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 100% ('返回条数，默认 20'), so the single optional parameter is fully documented in structured data. The description adds no additional meaning about how limit interacts with the timeline, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('查看' / view) and resource ('最近的操作时间线' / recent operation timeline), and enumerates the event categories it contains (perceive/click/type/command). This distinguishes it reasonably well from memory_stats and memory_clear, though it never explicitly contrasts with memory_recall.

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?

Usage is only implied by '最近' (recent) and the event-type list; there is no explicit statement of when to reach for this over memory_recall or memory_stats, nor any exclusion. An agent can infer it is the chronological-view option, but must guess.

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