memory_temporal_query

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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool performs deterministic temporal reasoning and which operations are available, giving useful behavioral context without contradicting 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 a single dense sentence and mostly efficient. The leading version string 'v11.0 W1-C' adds noise and could be removed, but the core capabilities are conveyed without excessive verbosity.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does not describe the return format or provide examples. Given the parameter complexity and the lack of an output schema, the description is not self-sufficient for an agent to confidently invoke the tool and interpret results.

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 only 40%, and several parameters (b, b_end, b_start, lang, op) have no or minimal description. The description mentions op modes but does not map each mode to its required parameters, leaving significant ambiguity about how to populate the interval fields.

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 names the resource as deterministic temporal reasoning and enumerates the three operation modes (relation, duration_between, normalize), giving a clear sense of the tool's purpose. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like memory_timeline, so differentiation is mostly implicit.

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?

It instructs the caller to pass op=relation|duration_between|normalize, which is a direct usage cue. But it does not explain when each operation should be chosen over alternatives such as memory_timeline or other memory tools, leaving selection partly to inference.

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