timeline

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It indicates a read-only operation ('Get') and implies a list of observations in chronological order. It does not mention side effects or prerequisites, but for a read-only tool, this is sufficient. It could be improved by noting the absence of side effects and the return format, but it does not contradict any annotations since none exist.

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 three sentences long, with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose ('Get chronological observations...'), then provides a concrete use case and parameter guidance. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is highly readable.

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 has 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description covers the purpose and gives a use case, but it does not describe the return format, what happens if neither anchor nor query is provided, or how the depth parameters are used together. With rich schema coverage, the parameter semantics are clear, but the lack of output format and edge-case handling leaves a gap in completeness.

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 schema descriptions already cover all five parameters (100% coverage), including defaults for depth_before/depth_after and the role of anchor vs. query. The description adds little beyond the schema, only re-stating that an anchor or query is needed. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting; the description adds marginal value by clarifying the relationship between the anchor and query.

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 action ('Get chronological observations') and its focus ('around a specific point'), distinguishing it from generic search tools. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the phrase 'chronological observations' and 'center point' convey a specific function that is distinct from tools like 'search' or 'get_observations.'

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 concrete use case ('understanding what happened before/after a change') and instructs the user to provide an anchor ID or search query. It does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternative tools, but the guidance given is clear and actionable.

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