memo_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by noting that short ids are 'resolved safely' and that ambiguous prefixes return an error list, which is behavioral context beyond the annotations. It doesn't contradict 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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value. It's concise without being under-specified, and the structure flows from general purpose to specific usage guidance.

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 moderate complexity (3 optional params, 100% schema coverage, output schema present, and strong annotations), the description is complete. It covers the tool's purpose, usage context, and key behavioral nuance (short id resolution) without needing to explain return values since an output schema exists.

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 already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, but it does reinforce the purpose of filtering by op and id. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 lists recent memory history events, with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('memory history events'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning audit trails and filtering by op and memory id, which is unique among the many memo_* tools.

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 explicitly says when to use it: 'Use for audit trails across the corpus or filter by op and memory id when investigating a specific write, update, delete, forget, or reindex action.' It also implies when not to use it (for searching content, use memo_search) and mentions safe short id resolution, providing clear context for selection.

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