replay_memory

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds that the tool 'shows' operations, confirming read-only behavior. It lists operation types (creation, updates, links, supersedes) but lacks other behavioral details like pagination or limits. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise (two sentences plus Args/Returns), front-loaded with the primary purpose, and organized with clear sections. No unnecessary information.

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?

With an output schema present, the description's mention of return format is sufficient. It covers the essential context for a single-memory history tool. However, it could mention that it applies to a single memory only, as opposed to a list of memories.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage for the single parameter memory_id. The description provides a brief but clear explanation ('UUID of the memory'), compensating for the missing schema documentation. However, it remains minimal.

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?

Clearly states 'Get the full history of a single memory' and specifics about operations shown. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like replay_snapshot or replay_lifecycle, which may cause confusion for an AI agent.

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?

Implies use for full chronological history, but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as replay_recall or replay_diff. No when-not-to-use or context provided.

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