history

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that only live entries are returned and implies ordering, but lacks details on pagination, rate limits, or auth requirements. The mention of alternatives adds some transparency.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence clearly states the primary purpose, and the second provides critical usage guidance. Concise and well-structured.

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 no output schema and moderate complexity (4 parameters), the description is adequate but incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format or fields of a memory, which may be needed for an agent to use the results. Sibling tools like 'recall' might provide context, but relying on that is risky.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no new meaning beyond the schema; it mentions scoping but the schema already describes parameters clearly. No extra value.

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 returns memories ordered by occurrence, with optional scoping by domain and date range. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly naming 'forgotten' and 'whats_stale' as alternatives for missing entries.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: for live entries only, and advises using 'forgotten' or 'whats_stale' if something seems missing. This clearly delineates from sibling tools.

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