memvid_find

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe, repeatable read operation. The description adds context about search modes (hybrid/lex/vec) which isn't in annotations, but doesn't explain what these modes mean, performance characteristics, or what 'search in a memory file' actually returns. No contradiction with annotations.

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 states the core functionality without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a search tool and front-loads the essential information.

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?

For a search tool with good annotations (readOnly, idempotent) and comprehensive schema coverage, the description provides the basic purpose but lacks important context. Without an output schema, it doesn't explain what results look like (e.g., relevance scores, snippets, structured data). It also doesn't help the agent choose between this and 'memvid_vec_search' or explain the practical differences between search modes.

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 schema already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description mentions 'hybrid, lexical, or vector search' which relates to the 'mode' parameter, but adds no additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Search') and resource ('in a memory file'), and specifies the search methods ('hybrid, lexical, or vector search'). It distinguishes from some siblings like 'memvid_create' or 'memvid_delete', but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'memvid_vec_search' which appears to be a more specific version of this tool.

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 like 'memvid_vec_search' (which appears to be a vector-only version) or 'memvid_ask' (which might be a different query approach). There's no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or when to choose different search modes.

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