goodmemory_timeline

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'compact chronological context' but does not explain what the tool returns, whether it is read-only, how pagination or limits work, or any edge behaviors. This is insufficient for a tool with no structural annotations.

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 only two sentences, but the first sentence 'Advanced recall.' is redundant filler that adds no information beyond the name. The second sentence carries the meaningful usage guidance. Overall it is concise but not maximally focused.

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 (7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It provides a high-level use case but omits behavioral details, return value expectations, and relation to sibling tools. The agent would likely need to guess or invoke incorrectly.

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), and the tool description adds no parameter-level meaning. Parameters like query, limit, recordsPerBucket, and retrievalProfile are not explained. The description does not compensate for the low schema coverage at all.

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 indicates the tool provides 'compact chronological context' for 'progressive GoodMemory recall,' which aligns with the 'timeline' name. It distinguishes from siblings through its chronological focus and the 'before drilling into recordRefs' workflow cue. The opening 'Advanced recall' is vague but the second sentence clarifies the purpose.

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 states when to use the tool: when you need compact chronological context before drilling into recordRefs. This gives a clear workflow context and implies it is a preparatory step. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, slightly limiting the guidance.

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