memory_changelog

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or how entries are ordered. The read-only nature of viewing an audit trail is implied but not explicit.

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?

Two concise sentences that front-load the core purpose and immediately clarify the two modes. No extraneous information, each sentence earns its place.

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?

While the description and schema cover parameters well, there is no output schema, and the description does not explain return structure, ordering, or how time ranges (start/end) affect results. For a tool with four parameters and no output schema, slightly more context on expected output would improve completeness.

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 100% with clear descriptions for all four parameters. The description adds value by explaining the difference between per-memory (state transitions) and system-wide (consolidations + recent changes) modes, which complements the schema's mention of memory_id scoping.

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 views an audit trail of memory changes, specifically distinguishing between per-memory state transitions and system-wide consolidations/recent changes. This provides a specific verb+resource and differentiates from sibling tools like 'memory_timeline' or 'memory_graph'.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives among the 33 siblings. The description implies two modes but does not compare to other audit or history tools, nor does it state when not to use it or mention prerequisites.

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