memory_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses event types and ordering but lacks details on potential behavioral traits like result limits, performance implications, or whether it is read-only (though implied). The output schema likely covers return value structure but this is not mentioned in the description.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys purpose, included event types, and ordering, with zero wasted words.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains the content and ordering of results. However, it could mention any time range restrictions or implicit limits, though these may be covered by the output schema.

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?

The single parameter memory_id is described in the schema with 'Exact memory UUID whose change history to fetch.' Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, earning a baseline 3.

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clearly explains the tool fetches a full change timeline of a memory, listing specific event types (ADD, UPDATE, SUPERSEDED, DELETE) and ordering (oldest first). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_memory (current state) and update_memory (modify).

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 history but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, relying on implied context from sibling names.

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