chronomem_timeline

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden but reveals almost nothing beyond a high-level purpose. It doesn't state whether this is read-only, what the output format looks like, whether it returns a timeline structure, how far back it traces, or any limits. For a query tool with no annotations and no output schema, this is a substantial gap.

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, well-formed sentence that is front-loaded with the core action ('Trace how beliefs and facts... have changed over time'). No wasted words and the entity scope is implied cleanly.

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 a query tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a single fully-documented parameter, the description is too thin. It says nothing about return values (e.g., chronological ordered changes), read-only behavior, or how it relates to sibling tools like chronomem_recall and chronomem_contradictions. An agent would need to guess at the output shape and appropriate usage context.

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%: the single 'entity' parameter is fully documented with type, description, and examples in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter context (e.g., fuzzy matching, case sensitivity). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema fully handles parameter semantics.

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: tracing belief/fact changes over time for an entity. Clear and distinct from siblings like remember (write) and recall (retrieve). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from chronomem_contradictions, which also deals with belief changes, leaving ambiguity about temporal vs. conflict-focused views.

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 implies a temporal, historical use case but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No mention of alternatives like chronomem_recall or chronomem_contradictions, so an agent must infer context from the tool name alone.

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