get_memory_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does add real information beyond the name — that append and update operations are recorded and replaced content is retained — but says nothing about ordering, completeness, retention limits, or behavior when the memory_id does not exist. Read-only behavior is only implied by 'Get'.

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 opening sentence is well front-loaded and earns its place. The trailing 'Args:' block is redundant boilerplate that duplicates the schema without adding meaning, which weakens an otherwise tight description.

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 output schema covers return shape, so the description needn't explain history entries. For a single-required-parameter read tool, stating what the history contains and that it spans edits and appends is enough to call it correctly.

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 0% for the single parameter, so the description must compensate. Instead the Args block is a tautological restatement ('memory_id: The ID of the memory') with no ID format, source, or valid-value guidance beyond the integer type already in the schema.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Get the full edit/append history of a memory') and adds a scope detail — it includes content replaced by update_memory — which implicitly distinguishes it from get_memory. It does not name get_memory explicitly, so the sibling differentiation is suggestive rather than explicit.

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?

Usage is implied: use this when you need prior versions/edits rather than the current memory state, and the mention of update_memory gestures at the relevant workflow. There is no explicit 'use X instead when' statement or prerequisite guidance.

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