palinode_diff

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

Annotations already convey read-only (readOnlyHint=true), idempotent (idempotentHint=true), and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false) behavior. The description confirms it shows changes, aligning with annotations, but adds no additional behavioral disclosure beyond the basic read operation. Given annotation coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 two sentences: the first states the function, the second gives a usage directive. Every sentence is concise and relevant, with no wasted words. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

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 two parameters, no output schema, and extensive annotations, the description sufficiently covers the tool's context. It explains the purpose and provides a typical use case. Some might expect a mention of the default days value, but that is already in the schema. Overall, it is complete for the tool's simplicity.

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?

Both parameters ('days' and 'paths') are fully described in the input schema with defaults and filtering semantics. The tool description does not add further meaning to these parameters, so it relies on the schema's 100% coverage. Baseline score of 3 applies as the description adds no extra parameter context.

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 shows recent memory changes with a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('memories'). It provides context for what types of changes are relevant (learnings, decisions, facts). While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like palinode_history, the usage hint suggests a focus on recent period, making the purpose clear.

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 explicitly instructs to 'Use to review what was learned, decisions made, or facts updated in the last N days,' providing a concrete use case. It implies the tool is for recent changes but does not mention alternatives or when not to use it. Nevertheless, the guidance is directly actionable.

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