memory_history

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

Given the annotations already declare the tool as read-only and non-destructive, the description adds useful behavioral context by specifying that it returns a chain of superseded versions ordered newest-to-oldest. This goes beyond the 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?

The description is two sentences with no unnecessary words. It is well-structured, with the core action stated first and a clarifying detail second.

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With no output schema, the description provides essential context about the output: it shows a chain of superseded versions and the ordering (newest → oldest). This is sufficient for basic understanding, though it does not detail the fields of each version entry.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters (only 'id') with a description that matches the tool's purpose. The description does not add any extra detail about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 verb ('View') and resource ('version history for a knowledge record'), clearly indicating the tool's function. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the focus on superseded versions (newest → oldest) differentiates it from tools like memory_get or memory_timeline.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios or conditions that would make this the preferred choice over memory_get or memory_timeline.

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