timeline_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It does disclose output characteristics: chronological order, grouping by day, and optional windowing. However, it does not explicitly state read-only/safety implications, date format expectations, or how the limit parameter affects results, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. Every word earns its place by conveying the core output and a key optional behavior.

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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description leaves important context uncovered: how limit behaves, what date formats are expected, whether the result is a flat list or nested by day, and when to choose this tool over similar memory-report siblings. It provides a high-level overview but not enough for fully reliable invocation.

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?

The description explicitly maps start and end to a 'start/end window', adding meaning beyond the bare schema. However, the limit parameter is not mentioned, and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description only partially compensates for the missing parameter documentation.

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 identifies the tool as producing an autobiographical timeline of episodic memories in chronological order grouped by day, with an optional start/end window. It lacks an explicit verb like 'reports' or 'generates', but the noun-phrase style still conveys the purpose and distinguishes it from sibling tools by the chronological/day-grouping emphasis.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as recall, search, or life_story. The only usage hint is the optional start/end window for date filtering, but there are no explicit when-to-use scenarios or exclusions.

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