memory_timeline

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

No annotations are present, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It states that memories are grouped by day and defaults to the last 7 days. However, it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, how pagination works beyond the limit parameter, or what happens with empty results. The grouping behavior is a useful disclosure, but side effects and precise behavior are omitted.

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 consists of two concise sentences. The first sentence provides the core action and primary characteristic (chronological browsing). The second sentence adds key defaults. No words are wasted, and the most important information is 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?

With no output schema and 6 optional parameters, the description adequately covers the high-level behavior and default range. However, it lacks details on the return format (e.g., structure of grouped memories), the meaning of 'brief', 'summary', 'full' detail levels, and the interaction between tag filters and date range. For a tool with moderate complexity, these gaps reduce 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 description coverage is 100%, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds value by explaining that results are 'grouped by day' and that the default time range is 'last 7 days'. These details clarify the start and end parameter defaults and the output structure. However, it does not elaborate on the 'detail_level' enum values or tag filtering semantics beyond the schema's 'ANY match'.

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's function: 'Browse memories chronologically' and specifies that it 'returns memories in a time range, grouped by day'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'search' (unstructured) or 'memory_graph' (connections). The verb 'browse' implies a listing operation, and 'chronologically' provides ordering context.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With 35 sibling tools (e.g., 'search', 'memory', 'memory_graph'), the description does not differentiate use cases or mention when this tool should be preferred. There are no examples or exclusions given.

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