get_memory_history

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates a safe read operation, so the description does not need to restate that. However, it adds no additional behavioral context such as data volume, time range limits, or performance considerations. The description is essentially a tautology of the tool name, providing no extra transparency.

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, short sentence that states the purpose without unnecessary fluff. It is structured in a front-loaded manner, with the verb and resource immediately clear. Although minimal, it earns its place by conveying the core function.

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-only getter with one optional parameter and an output schema, a detailed description is not strictly required. However, the description lacks any usage context or links to sibling tools, so completeness is moderate. The output schema already handles return value expectations, and the parameter schema handles input, leaving this description as the only missing piece for full contextual clarity.

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 input schema has 100% coverage for the single 'datetype' parameter, including a description of allowed granularities. The description does not add any parameter information beyond the schema, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage. The default value and description in the schema provide the necessary semantics.

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 memory historical usage data (获取内存历史使用数据), which is a specific verb+resource combination. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling monitoring tools, but the focus on memory history makes it distinguishable.

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 a use case: when you need memory history data. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_load_monitoring or get_system_overview, nor any exclusions. The purpose statement itself carries the implied usage.

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