memory_get_timeline

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get observations' and provides no details about ordering, inclusion of anchor, defaults behavior, or edge cases, which is minimal.

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 two concise sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the action and scope, the second provides a use case, so every sentence 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 simple read tool with only three parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but sparse. It covers the primary purpose and general use case, but lacks details on return format or edge cases. Given the simplicity, it is minimally complete.

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 documentation covers 100% of parameters, so the description adds little. It does imply the anchor is the center and before/after are counts, but this is already apparent from the schema. Baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves observations around a specific point in time, which distinguishes it from getting a single observation or searching. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, so it lacks a small degree of differentiation.

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 mentions the tool is useful for understanding context of an observation, giving a usage context. But it does not explicitly state when to use this over other memory tools, nor does it provide exclusions or alternative tool names.

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