temporal_anchor

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only,' which conveys the key behavioral safety trait. It also clarifies that it displays an insertion made by the time-anchor pass, giving context about what the tool does. However, it does not describe output format or edge cases like missing memories, but this is sufficient for a simple read-only tool.

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 two sentences and front-loaded with the core purpose. The first sentence is highly informative. The second sentence includes an academic citation (Gauthier et al., 2020) that adds little to tool selection/invocation and could be omitted, but overall the description is not bloated.

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?

The tool is simple (2 params, no annotations, no output schema), and the description gives a clear purpose and safety indication. However, it lacks parameter semantics and return-value expectations, which are not covered by schema or output schema. This creates gaps for an agent trying to invoke it correctly.

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%, and the description does not explain the parameters (query and top_k). Although it implies query is the user's style question, it does not define what top_k means or how param values affect behavior. This leaves the agent guessing on parameter usage.

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 a specific verb+resource: it shows which memory the time-anchor pass inserted, scoped to '上次/下次/最近/什么时候' style questions. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like recall or search by focusing on the time-anchor pass and last-vs-next retrieval verification.

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?

It provides clear context on when to use: for verifying last-vs-next retrieval in ordinal time processing questions. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name sibling tools, but the trigger ('上次/下次/最近/什么时候' style question) serves as a clear usage indicator.

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