temporal

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: 'as_of' excludes anything recorded after the specified instant, revealing past beliefs rather than current ones, and notes the engine version requirement. No contradictions.

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 front-loaded with a one-sentence summary, then uses a clearly formatted ACTIONS list and Args block. It is compact yet contains no filler; every sentence adds necessary invocation detail.

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 six parameters, action-dependent requirements, and no schema descriptions, the description covers all necessary selection and invocation details. The presence of an output schema means return values need no elaboration, and annotations cover the read-only safety profile.

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 input schema provides no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), but the description fully compensates: it explains the three action values, defines days differently for stale vs upcoming, marks query and as_of as required for as_of, and gives concrete as_of format examples.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Find stale or upcoming memories, or recall the past as it was known.' It then enumerates three distinct actions ('stale', 'upcoming', 'as_of') that clearly distinguish this temporal memory tool from siblings like recall or memory.

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 ACTIONS section explains when each mode is appropriate (inactivity threshold, approaching deadlines, time-travel recall). It stops short of explicitly naming sibling alternatives or stating when not to use temporal, but the context is clear enough for an agent to choose.

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