memvid_export

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

Annotations provide basic hints (non-readOnly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, non-openWorld), but the description adds minimal behavioral context. It doesn't explain what 'export' entails operationally (e.g., file overwriting, memory usage, or side effects). No contradictions with annotations exist, but the description doesn't enrich understanding beyond the structured data.

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 action and formats, making it easy to parse quickly. Every element serves a clear purpose.

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 adequate but minimal. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on output structure, error handling, or integration with sibling tools. For an export operation, more context on file behavior or data scope would be beneficial.

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 parameters (file path, output path, format with enum, frame_ids array). The description only mentions formats generically without adding syntax, constraints, or usage details beyond the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 action ('Export') and resource ('memory data') with specific output formats listed. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on data export rather than other operations like creation, deletion, or querying. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential similar export functions in sibling tools.

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_view, memvid_tables, memvid_find), there's no indication of whether this is the primary export method or if other tools might also export data in different contexts. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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