Get memory versions

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

Annotations already declare this is a safe read operation (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive), so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds real context beyond the annotations: result ordering (newest first), that each version carries full content, and that the current:true entry duplicates what get_memory returns.

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?

Four short sentences, with the core action, the ordering, the usage trigger, and the get_memory equivalence all front-loaded. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description does explain the return shape well: version list, newest-first, full content per version, and the current:true marker. It does not mention whether history is truncated or paginated for long-lived memories, a minor but real omission for a version-history tool.

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 coverage is only 50%: the 'brain' parameter is documented in the schema, but 'memoryId' has no description anywhere. The description implies that memoryId identifies 'one Brain memory' but does not explain how to obtain it (for example, from get_memory or search_brain). It therefore does not fully compensate for the gap, so the baseline score of 3 is correct.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Fetch every saved version of one Brain memory'), adds ordering ('newest first'), and explicitly separates it from the sibling get_memory, which returns only the current state. An agent can distinguish it from search_brain and get_memory without opening a schema.

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?

'Use this when you need to see how a fact changed' gives a clear use condition, and the closing sentence about current: true routes agents to get_memory for the current-state case. There is no explicit 'do not use when' statement, so it falls just short of a 5.

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