memvid_debug_segment

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, indicating safe, repeatable operations with closed-world assumptions. The description adds value by specifying 'debug segment information (internal structure)', which hints at introspection or diagnostic behavior beyond basic reads. It doesn't contradict annotations and adds context about the tool's focus on internal structures, though it could be more detailed on what debugging entails.

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: 'Debug segment information (internal structure)'. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids unnecessary words. However, it could be more structured by explicitly separating purpose from context, but its brevity is effective for a basic tool description.

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 2 parameters with full schema coverage, annotations covering safety and idempotency, but no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It specifies the tool's focus on debugging internal structures, which adds some context. However, for a debugging tool, more detail on what information is returned or how it aids debugging would enhance completeness, especially without an output schema.

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 descriptions for both parameters: 'file' as a path to a .mv2 memory file and 'segment_type' as an enum with values explained. The description doesn't add any semantic details beyond the schema, such as usage examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 'Debug segment information (internal structure)' states a general purpose (debugging) and resource (segment information) but lacks specificity about what debugging entails or what 'internal structure' means. It doesn't distinguish from siblings like memvid_audit or memvid_verify, which might also involve inspection. The purpose is vague rather than clearly differentiated.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description doesn't mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions. Siblings like memvid_audit or memvid_verify might overlap in debugging functions, but there's no explicit comparison or usage rules. This leaves the agent without direction on tool selection.

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