memory_timeline

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

The description is consistent with the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true) and does not contradict them. It adds minimal behavioral detail beyond stating it 'browses' session history, but given the simple read-only nature implied by annotations, the description provides adequate transparency without contradiction.

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, tightly packed sentence with no redundancy. It clearly conveys the core purpose and the meaning of several parameters without any fluff, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

The description provides the essential information for basic usage: what the tool does and how to specify certain filtering parameters. However, it omits details about the output format, how to interpret results, and when to choose this tool over similar ones. Given the absence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate but leaves some gaps.

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 coverage is only 29% (2 out of 7 parameters have descriptions). The description text explains the meaning of three parameters (sessions_ago, session_number, date_from/date_to) but leaves limit, query, and project unexplained. Since schema coverage is low and the description compensates only partially, the semantics are insufficient for full understanding.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose as browsing session history, with a specific verb ('browse') and resource ('session history'). It also explains the meaning of key parameters, which helps clarify the intended use. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like memory_history or kg_timeline, so it lacks explicit sibling distinction.

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 specific guidance on how to use certain parameters (sessions_ago, session_number, date_from/date_to), which is useful. However, it does not mention when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it provide any prerequisites or context about the expected input format or output. Thus, usage guidance is partial.

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