memvid_facts

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

Annotations already provide key behavioral hints: readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds minimal context beyond this, mentioning extraction from a frame but not detailing output format, error conditions, or performance aspects. It doesn't contradict annotations, but offers limited additional behavioral insight.

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 extremely concise with a single phrase: 'Fact extraction - list facts or extract from frame'. It's front-loaded and wastes no words, efficiently conveying the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration. Every part of the description earns its place by hinting at the tool's dual functionality.

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 (3 parameters, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on output format, error handling, or integration with sibling tools. The annotations provide safety and idempotency context, but the description doesn't fully leverage this to guide usage effectively.

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 each parameter. The description adds no specific parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining relationships between 'frame_id' and 'list' or file format details. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either.

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 as 'Fact extraction - list facts or extract from frame', which specifies the verb (extract/list) and resource (facts). It distinguishes this from most sibling tools that perform different operations like create, delete, or search. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential similar tools like 'memvid_ask' or 'memvid_find' that might also retrieve information.

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. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, context for choosing between 'list' and 'frame_id' extraction, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'memvid_ask' for querying facts or 'memvid_find' for searching. Usage is implied through parameter names but not explicitly stated.

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