temporal

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, which align with the description's query-like actions. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by explaining that as_of excludes records after the given instant ('so you see the belief held then'), specifies the engine version, and notes that range returns oldest first. This enriches the agent's understanding without contradicting 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 well-structured with a clear summary line, an ACTIONS section explaining each mode, and an Args section detailing parameters. It is front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence contributes meaningful information—no fluff or redundancy. The density is justified by the tool's complexity.

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 tool with 4 actions, 8 parameters, and an output schema (presumably defining return format), the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, action semantics, parameter formats, default behaviors, and routing guidance. It also discloses the engine version constraint for as_of. The presence of an output schema means return-value explanation is unnecessary, and the description sufficiently equips an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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%, so the description carries full responsibility for parameter meaning. It meticulously explains each parameter: action (allowed values), days (threshold/look-ahead), limit (max results), namespace (optional filter), query (required for as_of, optional for range with behavior for given/omitted), as_of/since/until (formats including relative days), thus exceeding what the bare schema provides.

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?

Description clearly states 'Find stale or upcoming memories, recall the past, or scan a time window' with four named actions (stale, upcoming, as_of, range). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'recall' by focusing on temporal queries and explicitly contrasts with similarity search for range queries.

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?

Provides explicit guidance for when to use each action. The range action is described as the surface for 'what happened tonight / this week, in what order' and explicitly routes period/sequence questions here, contrasting with similarity search. as_of is described as time-travel recall, and stale/upcoming have clear use cases.

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