memory_changelog

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It signals a read-only operation via 'View' and describes what each mode returns, but it does not disclose ordering, pagination, time-range handling, or whether the audit trail is filtered or complete. This is adequate but leaves important behavioral gaps.

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 concise: two short sentences with no filler. The primary purpose and the two distinct operating modes are front-loaded and immediately actionable.

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 the lack of an output schema and annotations, the description should explain more about what the returned audit trail contains and how the modes affect results. It covers the basic mode distinction but omits guidance on when to prefer this tool over the similar-sounding 'memory_timeline' and what format or order results will take.

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. The description adds meaningful mode semantics: per-memory mode corresponds to state transitions, while system-wide mode corresponds to consolidations and recent state changes. This helps an agent understand the effect of supplying or omitting memory_id beyond what the schema states.

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 identifies the verb ('View') and resource ('audit trail of memory changes'), and distinguishes two modes: per-memory state transitions and system-wide consolidations/recent state changes. It is specific and understandable, though it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from the similarly named sibling 'memory_timeline'.

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 implies usage context by presenting per-memory versus system-wide modes, which helps an agent decide whether to supply a memory_id or omit it. However, it does not state when to choose this tool over alternatives like memory_timeline, nor does it provide exclusions or explicit conditions beyond the two modes.

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