vault_time_travel

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It explains the append-only, hash-chained ledger, and describes each action's behavior, including side effects like redact's 'chained tombstone' and hash chain verifiability. However, it does not mention rate limits or authorization requirements.

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 well-structured, starting with a clear one-sentence purpose, followed by a detailed list of actions and parameters. It is somewhat verbose (e.g., repeating 'ISO-8601' multiple times) but each part adds value. It could be slightly tighter without losing clarity.

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 has 8 parameters, no schema descriptions, and an output schema (unseen), the description covers the main actions and their return concepts. However, missing parameter documentation for 'reason' and 'claim_id' reduces completeness. The output schema existence does not fully offset this gap since the description does not reference it.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It documents 6 out of 8 parameters (action, when, from_when, to_when, entity, time_axis) with clear meaning and examples. However, it omits documentation for 'reason' and 'claim_id' (though claim_id is mentioned in the redact action). This partial coverage leaves a gap.

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 explicitly states the tool's function: 'Query the vault's bitemporal belief ledger — memory time travel.' It lists specific actions (as_of, diff, timeline, verify_chain, seed, redact) which clarify the scope and distinguish it from sibling tools like vault_search or vault_query.

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 explains what each action does but does not explicitly compare this tool to alternatives or state when not to use it. With many sibling tools (e.g., vault_query, vault_search), explicit usage guidance would be beneficial, but the action descriptions imply use cases.

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