memory_timeline

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses meaningful behavior: chronological ordering, day grouping, and the default 7-day window. However, it omits details like whether the operation is read-only, how pagination works beyond 'limit', and what values appear in the returned day groups.

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, with the primary purpose front-loaded and the second sentence adding key behavioral context. Every clause contributes meaning and there is no redundancy or filler.

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?

For a simple browse-with-filters tool, the description is nearly complete: it states the action, time-range behavior, grouping, and defaults. It lacks explicit sibling routing and a note about the shape of the returned day groups, but this is not a severe gap given the exhaustive schema.

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?

The input schema already describes all 6 parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds little beyond restating that memories are returned in a time range and defaults to 7 days, which the schema documents via 'start' and 'end' defaults. With full schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific action ('Browse memories chronologically') and a clear resource with defined behavior. It differentiates itself from memory search by focusing on chronological browsing, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 for retrieving memories in a time range and defaults to last 7 days, making the general use case clear. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over the sibling 'search' tool or any exclusions.

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