Memory diff

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=true), description adds 'Deterministic, no LLM', assuring predictability and no AI generation. This provides useful behavioral insight not captured by annotations alone.

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?

Three concise sentences front-loaded with core purpose. No redundant information; every sentence adds value.

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 simple read-only diff tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers key aspects: purpose, output format (added/revised beliefs), and behavior (deterministic). Minor gap on return structure but sufficient.

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 0%. The description explains 'hours' parameter by referencing 'last `hours`', but does not mention or explain the 'namespace' parameter. Partial compensation.

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 shows memory changes over a time period, specifying newly added and revised beliefs. It distinguishes itself from siblings like memory_state or recall by focusing on changes since last session.

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 explicitly frames the tool as a 'what's new since our last session' view for resuming long-horizon work. While it doesn't mention alternatives, the context is clear enough for appropriate use.

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