palinode_blame

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by saying the tool maps each line to the session or commit that created it. It does not describe output formatting or whether the claims flag changes the response, but there is no contradiction with 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?

Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the primary purpose, and the second clarifies the output granularity. The description is front-loaded and every part earns its place.

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 read-only tool with 3 well-documented parameters and rich safety annotations, the description is largely complete. Since there is no output schema, the description does need to convey return semantics, and 'shows which session or commit created each line' does that. It could be more explicit about how the optional claims and search flags reshape the result, but the schema fills that gap.

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%, and each parameter (file_path, search, claims) already has a meaningful schema description. The tool description adds little parameter-level detail beyond reinforcing that file_path targets a memory file and that the result is line-oriented, 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 uses a specific verb ('Trace') with a clear resource ('a fact', 'each line in a memory file') and explains the outcome: showing which session or commit created a line. It evokes git-blame semantics, which helps distinguish it from general history or diff tools, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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 implies the tool should be used when an agent needs to know the provenance of a fact or line in a memory file. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like palinode_trace or palinode_history, so the when-to-use guidance is only implicit.

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