nyarhi_timeline

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. 'Print' suggests a read-only operation, and 'newest last' discloses ordering, but it does not explicitly state that it is non-mutating, mention permissions, or address potential large result sets.

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, front-loaded sentence conveys the core action and output ordering with zero wasted words. It is an excellent example of conciseness.

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 gives a clear purpose for a simple read tool, and an output schema exists to document return values. However, it lacks parameter semantics, usage differentiation from siblings, and explicit safety context, leaving meaningful gaps for a tool with optional parameters.

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 0% and the description does not explain the 'limit' or 'store' parameters. The names are somewhat self-explanatory, but no detail is provided on their format, behavior, or relationship to the tool's operation.

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 uses the specific verb 'Print' with resource 'mutation timeline' and adds scope details ('every recorded change, newest last'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools by specifying the unique mutation-focused timeline.

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 usage for viewing mutation history but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over siblings like mhangani_history or mhangani_audit. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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