kg_timeline

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

The description adds that results are full and chronological, but it does not disclose the default limit, whether invalidated assertions are included, or how predicate/project filters affect results. Read-only and idempotent behavior are covered by annotations.

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 concise sentence with no redundant or extraneous content; the core action and resource are 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?

For a tool with no output schema, the description conveys that a chronological history is returned, but omits filtering semantics and default limits, leaving some operational context implicit.

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?

With zero parameter descriptions in the schema, the text only adds meaning to 'subject' (the entity whose assertions are returned). limit, predicate, and project remain unexplained.

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 identifies the resource (chronological assertions for a subject) and implies retrieval via 'full history', distinguishing it from a point-in-time lookup like kg_at. It lacks an explicit verb but is clear in 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 given on when to prefer this tool over siblings such as kg_at or kg_add_fact, nor any mention of use cases or alternatives.

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