memvid_audit

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

Annotations provide key behavioral hints: readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false. The description adds minimal context beyond this, mentioning 'sources and citations' which hints at output format but doesn't detail report structure, performance, or limitations. No contradiction with annotations, but value addition is limited.

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, efficient sentence: 'Generate an audit report with sources and citations.' It's front-loaded with the core purpose, has zero waste, and is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity. Every word 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on report format, error handling, or integration with sibling tools. With annotations covering safety and idempotency, it meets a basic threshold but leaves gaps in practical usage context.

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%, with clear parameter descriptions in the schema (e.g., 'Path to the .mv2 memory file' for 'file'). The description doesn't add meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining parameter interactions or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the comprehensive schema.

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's purpose: 'Generate an audit report with sources and citations.' It specifies the action ('generate'), resource ('audit report'), and key outputs ('sources and citations'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'memvid_verify' or 'memvid_facts' that might also involve analysis or reporting.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'memvid_verify', 'memvid_facts', 'memvid_find'), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. Usage is implied only by the tool name and purpose, lacking explicit direction.

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