memo_history

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive nature. The description adds 'Short ids are resolved safely,' a useful behavioral detail beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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 primary purpose followed by direct use guidance. No redundant or irrelevant phrasing. Every sentence adds value.

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 simplicity (read-only history listing with three optional filters), the description fully covers purpose, usage context, and key behavioral traits. Output schema exists to handle return format details, so no further completeness needed.

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 coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions. The description reiterates filtering by op and id and notes short id resolution but does not add significant new meaning or constraints beyond the schema. Baseline score is appropriate.

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?

Clearly states 'List recent memory history events' and contrasts with other tools by specifying its role for audit trails and filtering by operation or memory id. Differentiates from siblings like memo_list (current memories) and memo_get (single memory), making selection unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly guides usage: '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.' Does not explicitly state when not to use, but the purpose is clear enough for an agent to infer alternatives from sibling context.

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