memory_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the return ordering and the temporal/supersession fields the chain contains. However it says nothing about the read-only nature of the call, pagination, or whether chains can be long, so behavioral coverage is partial.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the resource and return shape, with zero filler. Every clause (chain scope, ordering, returned fields, id flexibility) earns its place.

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 read-only lookup with no output schema, the description adequately explains what comes back (full chain, ordering, temporal fields) and how to address it. Minor gaps remain around pagination or chain-size limits, but nothing essential to calling it correctly is missing.

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% and the schema already states memory_id is "UUID of any version in the chain," so the description's note that it works from any version's id adds little beyond the structured field. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource: it returns the full version chain for a memory, with concrete returned fields (valid_from/valid_until/superseded_by) and ordering (oldest first). It is distinguishable from memory_get/search by describing a chain rather than a single record, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

"Works from any version's id" is the only usage signal, and it usefully tells the agent it need not supply the root version. There is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-memory_get guidance or mention of prerequisites, so usage is only implied.

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