sage_timeline

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses the 31-day maximum span constraint, which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it doesn't explain how 'time buckets' are determined or what the response contains, leaving some ambiguity about the tool's behavior.

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 exceptionally concise—two sentences—and front-loads the core purpose while embedding the key constraint. Every word adds value, with no fluff or repetition.

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?

For a simple retrieval tool with 3 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context. It could benefit from clarifying 'time buckets' and the nature of the returned data, but the lack of a defined output schema lowers the bar. This is a minor gap.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter-level context beyond the schema: 'grouped by time buckets' gives some hint about how the time range is processed, but it doesn't clarify the format, defaults, or interactions between 'from' and 'to'. The schema already documents formats and the 31-day limit, so the description adds little extra.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Get memories in a time range, grouped by time buckets.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('memories') with scope ('in a time range'). While it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like 'sage_recall', the time-based grouping is a distinctive feature that aids differentiation.

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 provides clear usage context: 'Use this to see memory activity over time.' This implies when to use the tool. However, it stops short of explicitly stating when NOT to use it or naming alternatives, which would be needed for a 5.

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