memo_record_diff

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, but the description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: it specifies chronological ordering, supports full id or unique prefix (with prefix resolution), and explains that `limit` caps events while `has_more` reports truncation. This enriches the agent's understanding of how the tool behaves 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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence adds value. It avoids redundancy, is concise, and is well-structured for quick parsing by an agent.

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?

Given the tool has only 2 parameters (both documented) and an output schema exists, the description is fully sufficient. It covers purpose, usage context, behavioral details, and parameter semantics. No additional information is needed for an agent to select and invoke this 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description repeats some of this (e.g., prefix resolution, limit capping) but adds the semantic note about `has_more` reporting truncation, which is a minor addition. Since the schema carries the heavy lifting, baseline 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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Return recent history events for one memory in chronological order.' This clearly states what the tool does and differentiates it from sibling tools like memo_history (which likely covers broader history) by focusing on per-memory change inspection.

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 description gives clear usage context: 'Use to inspect how a memory changed over time before editing or rolling back.' This tells the agent when to invoke this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it misses the 'when-not/alternatives' element of a full 5.

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