mind_state

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

No annotations are provided, so the description itself must convey behavior. It indicates a read-only reconstruction of a past state ('as it stood'), which is useful context. However, it does not explicitly state side-effect-free behavior, permissions, or error conditions, leaving some gaps.

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 a single sentence that instantly communicates the tool's purpose without fluff. It is front-loaded with the key metaphor and specifies scope, making it highly efficient.

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?

With an output schema available, the description does not need to elaborate return values. It covers the primary functionality (retrieving a full wiki snapshot at a point) and is complemented by schema descriptions for parameters. It doesn't address edge cases, but that's not expected for a well-specified tool.

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?

The schema fully describes both parameters ('at' and 'branch') with clear descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-specific information, but the schema already provides sufficient guidance, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 uses a clear metaphor 'Time-travel' and specifies the resource: 'the whole wiki (memories + links) as it stood at a commit, branch head, or moment in time.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like mind_diff (which compares states) or memory_history (which focuses on a single memory).

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 implicitly communicates a use case: retrieving a historical snapshot of the entire wiki. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. The context is clear enough that an agent could infer the correct scenario, but there are no exclusionary guidelines.

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