hebbrix_history

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that it shows historical changes and supersessions, providing additional behavioral insight beyond the annotations without contradiction.

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 concise and to the point—two sentences with no redundancy. It efficiently communicates purpose and use case.

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 an output schema present (not shown), return values are covered. The description explains the operation's purpose and behavior sufficiently for a memory history tool, though it omits edge cases like ordering or deleted versions, which are minor.

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 only parameter 'memory_id' has no description in the schema, and the description does not clarify its meaning, format, or any constraints. It relies solely on the parameter name, offering no added value.

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 version history of a memory, including supersessions, and its use case ('see what a fact used to be'). This distinguishes it from siblings like get, list, or update.

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 provides a clear use case ('useful to see what a fact used to be'), implying when to use it. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., 'use get for current value') but the intent is clear given the sibling names.

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