get_relation_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get the version history', which implies a read operation but offers no details about return format, side effects, required permissions, or limitations. This is a significant gap for a tool without annotation support.

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 concise sentence of 15 words, front-loaded with the action 'Get the version history'. It wastes no words and is easily scannable.

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 captures the core purpose but omits details about the returned history structure or how it differs from entity history. With no output schema and no annotations, an agent may lack sufficient context to fully understand the tool's behavior, but the tool is a simple getter and the schema helps.

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 covers all three parameters (from, to, relationType) with descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get the version history of a relation' with a specific verb and resource, and explicitly mentions 'history' to distinguish from the sibling tool get_relation which likely returns the current state. It also provides context that this is from the Memento MCP knowledge graph 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of get_relation, get_entity_history, or other siblings. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned. The description merely defines the action without contextual usage hints.

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