get_memory_revisions

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the result is a chain, ordered by depth with 0 as current, and it names the motivating scenario (verifying a recorded correction). It stops short of saying what happens for a memory with no revisions or how deep chains can get.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the what, then the when. No filler and every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to infer.

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 one-parameter read tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, trigger conditions, and return ordering. A brief note on the response shape (e.g., fields per revision, behavior when no prior versions exist) would close the remaining gap.

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 100% and the single parameter's schema description already states the id formats ('mem_abc', 'merged_<uuid>') and the depth ordering. The description only restates the ordering, adding no syntax or format detail beyond structured data, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Fetch the supersede chain for one memory') plus the ordering semantics (depth 0 = current). This is clearly distinguishable from the sibling 'recall' tool and from 'get_page_revisions' by resource type.

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?

Explicitly gates usage: 'Use after recall only when the user explicitly asks for that memory's history or evolution, or to verify that a correction was recorded.' It names the prerequisite tool (recall) and the two narrow conditions that justify the call, which is exactly the routing guidance an agent needs.

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