goodmemory_timeline

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'progressive' recall but doesn't describe side effects, performance, auth requirements, or what happens on success/failure. Important traits like idempotency or rate limits are absent.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. Every word contributes value with no redundancy.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 7 parameters with low coverage, the description is too brief. It provides a high-level purpose but lacks details on behavior, parameter format, output structure, or error conditions needed for an agent to use 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 only 29% (2 of 7 parameters have descriptions). The description adds 'chronological context' hint but doesn't explain key parameters like query, limit, recordsPerBucket, retrievalProfile, includeRuntime. With low coverage, the description fails to compensate.

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: 'Advanced recall' for progressive GoodMemory recall to get compact chronological context before drilling into recordRefs. It uses specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes from siblings like goodmemory_get_context and goodmemory_get_records.

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 tells when to use: 'when you need compact chronological context before drilling into recordRefs.' It implies a workflow (progressive recall) but doesn't explicitly say when not to use or list alternatives, though the context hints at them.

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