get_memory_history

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and open-world behavior, which the description does not contradict. The description adds value by specifying that it retrieves 'version history' and 'evolved over time,' providing context about what data is returned, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by illustrative examples that earn their place by clarifying use cases. It is appropriately sized with no wasted words, making it efficient and easy to understand.

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 the tool's complexity (historical data retrieval), annotations cover safety (read-only) and data scope (open-world), and schema coverage is complete. However, without an output schema, the description could better explain return values (e.g., format of version history). It is mostly complete but has a minor gap in output details.

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 fully documents the parameters. The description adds semantic context by linking parameters to examples (e.g., 'metric' for category, 'mrr' for key), but it does not provide new information beyond what the schema already states. This meets the baseline for high coverage.

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 purpose with specific verbs ('Get the version history') and resources ('of a specific memory'), and it distinguishes from siblings by focusing on historical evolution rather than current states or other operations. Examples like 'What was my MRR 3 months ago?' reinforce its unique function.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (to see how metrics, deal stages, or priorities have evolved over time), but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools. The examples help guide usage but lack explicit exclusions.

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