memkernel_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two real behaviors: results are limited to the active branch, and only "live" (non-dead) events are returned, plus most-recent ordering. It omits any statement about the limit parameter's effect, ordering guarantees, or pagination behavior, which is a notable gap for a zero-annotation tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste; the scope constraint comes first and the parenthetical adds operational value rather than 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the branch/recency scoping is covered. Still missing is any definition of "live events" versus the events written by memkernel_log_execution/memkernel_note, and any explanation of the limit parameter, leaving the agent to guess at result size and content boundaries.

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 0% and the single parameter ("limit", default 30) is never mentioned in the description, so the agent gets no explanation of what it bounds, its valid range, or what happens when it is exhausted. The schema's type and default are the only source of meaning.

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 ("List"), a specific resource ("live events"), and a scope ("most recent", "on the active branch"), so the agent can distinguish it from memkernel_rollback or memkernel_log_execution. It falls short of a 5 only because "live events" is internal jargon whose definition is never pinned down.

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 parenthetical "(ids for rollback)" implies this is the discovery step preceding memkernel_rollback, which is genuine usage signal. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not framing and no guidance on how it relates to siblings like memkernel_log_execution, memkernel_note, or memkernel_query_state.

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