memory_history

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: revisions are listed newest first, each carries commit metadata (message, author, branch, time), and it's a read operation. This goes beyond the schema's parameter definitions.

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. The second sentence adds valuable context about revision contents and the revert integration without waste.

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 tool has an output schema and full parameter coverage. The description explains the nature of the output (commit info), ordering, and next-step integration with mind_revert. It's sufficient for a history-read tool, though it doesn't explicitly mention pagination or default limits (schema does).

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add significant parameter-level detail; the schema already documents memory_id, full, and limit clearly.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Every revision of one wiki page... its edit history.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings like recall or list_memories by focusing on revisions and even links to mind_revert for restoration.

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?

It implies when to use this tool: when you need edit history of a specific memory. It also provides a workflow pointer to mind_revert for restoring old versions. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like artifact_history or list_memories, so not a 5.

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