memvid_follow

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds minimal context by implying traversal behavior ('follow entity relationships'), but doesn't elaborate on aspects like rate limits, auth needs, or what 'hops' entails beyond the schema. 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, concise sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and efficient, though it could be more specific to improve clarity without adding bulk.

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 minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on output format, error handling, or deeper behavioral context, leaving gaps for the agent to infer usage.

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 parameter descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining 'hops' in more detail or the significance of 'link' types. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema adequately documents parameters.

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 'Follow entity relationships in the knowledge graph' states the general purpose but is vague. It mentions 'follow' as the verb and 'entity relationships' as the resource, but lacks specificity about what 'follow' entails (e.g., traversal, exploration) and doesn't distinguish from siblings like memvid_find or memvid_view, which might also involve graph operations.

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 context like starting from an entity or exploring relationships, nor does it reference sibling tools for comparison, leaving the agent without clear usage cues.

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