sage_timeline

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. However, it only states the basic function and does not discuss details like whether it is read-only, how the time buckets are defined, pagination, sorting, or any limits. The description is too minimal to fully inform the agent about behavioral traits.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two sentences that immediately state the core functionality and the intended use case. Every word contributes value, and there is no redundancy or irrelevant information. It is perfectly front-loaded.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should provide context about output format and grouping behavior. It mentions grouping by time buckets but does not specify the structure of the returned data (e.g., list of buckets with count/items). This leaves some ambiguity and is incomplete for a fully self-contained definition.

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 100%, meaning each parameter already has a description in the schema. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond a brief summary of the tool. According to the rubric, when coverage is high, a baseline of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not significantly enhance understanding of the parameters.

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 action: 'Get memories in a time range, grouped by time buckets.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the phrase 'grouped by time buckets' differentiates it from other memory retrieval tools like sage_recall or sage_list. The additional guidance 'Use this to see memory activity over time' reinforces the unique purpose.

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 a clear context for use: 'Use this to see memory activity over time.' This implies it is for temporal overviews, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternative tools for other scenarios. Still, the guidance is sufficient for an AI agent to understand its primary use case.

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