decision_timeline

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: the log is append-only, 'nothing here can be rewritten and the record is trustworthy,' and results are newest-first. This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 a single dense paragraph but front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds information (filters, return format, ordering). It could be split for readability, but every sentence earns its place with no fluff.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, usage context, parameter semantics, and return format ('a list of entries with the operation, timestamp, affected file, revision ids, and a readable diff'). It also disambiguates from sibling tools. It is complete for a read-only history tool with an output schema present.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema documents all parameters. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema, such as explaining that file_id restricts to one file's history, operation enum values, and project_path behavior (including the instruction to always omit it when pinned to a project).

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'show the append-only history of how memory changed over time, with a human-readable diff per entry.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly contrasting with 'search_memory or read_memory for what a file says now,' clarifying that this is history, not content.

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?

It clearly states when to use the tool ('to answer when and how a memory changed, or to recover text that an edit replaced') and provides explicit alternatives ('use search_memory or read_memory for what a file says now'). It also gives detailed parameter usage guidance, including how to filter and when to omit project_path.

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