replay_lifecycle

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint: true, and the description adds that it shows the full lifecycle. With annotations present, the description doesn't need to cover safety, but it offers additional behavioral context about the scope of events displayed.

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 extremely efficient: a one-line summary, bullet list of included events, usage context, and structured Args/Returns. No redundant sentences.

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 a single parameter, read-only annotation, and the existence of an output schema, the description fully covers behavior and return value. The output schema handles detailed structure, so the description is sufficient.

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%, but the description compensates by stating 'memory_id: UUID of the memory to inspect.' This adds format (UUID) and purpose, which is beyond the schema's bare type/field name.

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 purpose: 'Full biography of a single memory' listing specific events (creation, updates, recalls, links, deletion). This uniquely identifies it among similar tools like replay_timeline or replay_diff.

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 explicitly says 'Use this to understand why a memory exists and how it evolved' and mentions required tier. While it doesn't provide negative usage guidance or list alternatives, it gives clear context for when to use.

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