memory_provenance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'Get the full audit trail,' which implies a read-only operation but gives no details on performance, limits, or what 'full' entails. No behavioral traits beyond the basic action are disclosed.

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 sentence, making it concise, but it omits crucial information about parameters and usage. It is front-loaded with the purpose but under-specified for effective tool invocation.

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 an output schema exists, return values are not required, but the description still lacks detail about input parameters and behavioral context. The minimal description is insufficient for a tool with two parameters and no schema descriptions.

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 0%, meaning no parameter descriptions exist in the schema. The tool description does not explain what 'memory_id' or 'project' represent or how to use them, adding no semantic value beyond the schema's structural definition.

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 'Get the full audit trail for a memory' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from siblings focused on storing, updating, or deleting memories. However, 'full audit trail' is somewhat vague and does not explicitly differentiate it from version tracking tools like memory_version.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It is implied that it is for retrieving audit trails, but there are no exclusion criteria, prerequisites, or mentions of related tools despite many siblings.

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