memory_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full disclosure burden. 'Trace' and 'Shows how a memory evolved' strongly imply a non-mutating read, but it never states cost, permissions, pagination, or what happens if the ID is not part of a chain.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action ('Trace the version history...') and no filler. Every sentence adds distinct information.

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?

With only three fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers what the tool is for and what it conceptually returns (an evolution view). It is nearly complete, missing only invocation constraints such as what happens on an unresolved ID.

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%, so memoryId (full UUID or 8+ prefix), scope, and the direction enum are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond the structured fields, 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?

Specific verb ('trace') plus a precise resource ('version history of a memory through its supersede/merge chain'), which makes its scope distinct from the flat recall siblings. It does not name an alternative tool explicitly, but the chain/evolution framing clearly separates it from memory_recall and memory_merge.

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 implied rather than stated: an agent can infer 'use when you need a memory's lineage,' and the mention of supersede/merge hints at its relation to memory_merge. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. alternative guidance or exclusions.

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