View memory version history

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds substantive context on top: a read-permission requirement, a 30-day retention window for superseded versions, newest-first ordering, and mode-dependent return shape. This is exactly the behavioral detail annotations cannot express.

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?

Five compact sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, then mode behavior, then retention, then the restore-related caveat. Nothing is redundant and every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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 no output schema, the description still explains what comes back in both modes (a page of previews vs full version content), plus retention and permission constraints. An agent can call this correctly on the first attempt without further inference.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: it clarifies that revision switches the tool between list and full-read modes and that page size/cursor apply only to the listing path. It stops short of explaining cursor lifetime or next_cursor source beyond the schema's own wording.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: viewing retained versions of a live or trashed record within the selected Vault. It is clearly distinguishable from ragionex_view_memory (current content) and ragionex_restore_memory (restore), though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

Explains the two operating modes precisely: omit revision to get a page of previews newest-first, supply revision to get that version's full content. It also gives workflow guidance ('Read the chosen version before restoring it') that ties this tool to the restore path, though it never states when not to use it or when a sibling is preferable.

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