memvid_doctor

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

Annotations already indicate this is a destructive, non-idempotent operation (destructiveHint: true, idempotentHint: false), but the description adds valuable context by specifying it's for 'diagnose and repair' of memory files. This implies potential data modification or restoration, which aligns with and elaborates on 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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for its complexity.

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 destructive nature indicated by annotations and the lack of an output schema, the description adequately covers the basic purpose. However, it doesn't explain what 'diagnose' entails (e.g., error reporting) or the implications of 'repair' (e.g., data recovery), leaving some behavioral aspects unclear for a tool with significant mutation potential.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema fully documents all 5 parameters (file path and four boolean flags for index rebuilding and dry run). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline score of 3.

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 with specific verbs ('diagnose and repair') and resource ('a memory file'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like 'memvid_verify' or 'memvid_audit' which might also involve file inspection, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 like 'memvid_verify', 'memvid_audit', and 'memvid_correct' that might overlap in functionality, there's no indication of specific use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions for this diagnostic and repair tool.

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