memory_timeline

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the behavioral constraint of a chronological window around an anchor, which is useful context beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose behaviors like default depth (depth_before/depth_after default 3), ordering direction, or how anchor selection resolves when both memory_id and query are provided. No contradiction with 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 a single 13-word sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core operation ('Get a chronological window') and then adds the key modifier ('around an anchor (by ID or query)'). Every word earns its place, and the structure is immediately scannable.

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?

Despite having an output schema and read-only annotations, this is a highly complex tool (26 parameters, many filters, 0 required). The description fails to explain how to invoke it correctly: whether memory_id or query is required, how they interact, what the default window sizes are, or how filtering parameters shape results. An agent would need substantial external knowledge to call this tool effectively, so the description is not complete for the tool's complexity.

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 only 35%, so the description must compensate for the many undocumented parameters (26 total, 0 required). It only clarifies that the anchor can be specified 'by ID or query', which maps to memory_id and query. It says nothing about depth_before/depth_after, filters (visibility, trust, scope, workspace), or the many include/exclude arrays. This is minimal added meaning over the schema and leaves most parameters semantically unexplained.

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 names a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('memories'), and a distinctive scoping concept ('chronological window around an anchor'). It differentiates from siblings like memory_recent and memory_search through the anchor/window framing, though it does not explicitly name any sibling. This is clear but slightly below a 5 because the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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 implies when to use the tool: when you need memories around a specific anchor in chronological order. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over alternatives such as memory_search or memory_recent, and no exclusions or prerequisites. Usage context is present only by inference.

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