timeline_reconstruction

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states 'Shows titles only for better performance and readability' and 'Returns scalable timeline with titles instead of full content', which are key behavioral traits. The term 'Extracts' implies a non-destructive read operation. It doesn't mention side effects, but for a read-only analysis tool the disclosure is adequate.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it includes 'Phase 2.2' and 'OPTIMIZED' which are process labels and not tool behaviors, adding minor noise. The remaining content is efficient and organized into three concise sentences.

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 tool with six optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main behavioral aspects: what data it extracts, the output format (titles only), and date filtering shortcuts. It doesn't explain all possible parameter combinations, but since there are no required params and the schema is self-documenting, the description is sufficiently complete for effective tool selection.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters thoroughly. The description adds context about 'Smart date filtering with shortcuts available,' which complements the schema's examples ('7d', '30d', '90d') but does not significantly enhance understanding of individual parameters. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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's function: 'Extracts chronological timeline data from branch notes and commit separators for reality sync analysis.' This is a specific verb-resource pair that distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_branch_notes or search_branch_notes, which focus on raw note content rather than timeline construction.

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 indicates the tool is for 'reality sync analysis' and is labeled 'Phase 2.2', suggesting a specific workflow step. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when to use them instead. The context implies this is for chronological reconstruction, which is a clear use case, but lacks explicit exclusion guidance.

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