memvid_memories

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds value by specifying the three operation modes (list, stats, filter), which provides behavioral context beyond annotations. However, it doesn't mention output format, pagination, or performance characteristics that would be helpful for an agent.

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 covers the core operations. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the main purpose. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating the three operation types for clarity.

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, 100% schema coverage, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the operation modes but lacks details on output format, error conditions, or examples. With no output schema, the description should ideally hint at return values, but it doesn't, leaving gaps for an agent.

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%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description mentions 'list, stats, or filter by entity', which loosely maps to the boolean parameters 'list' and 'stats' and the string parameter 'entity', but doesn't add meaningful semantics beyond what the schema already provides. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the 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 'Memory card operations - list, stats, or filter by entity' states the general purpose but lacks specificity about what 'memory cards' are or what resource is being operated on. It distinguishes from some siblings (e.g., memvid_create, memvid_delete) by implying read-only operations, but doesn't clearly differentiate from similar tools like memvid_view or memvid_stats. The description is vague about the exact verb and resource scope.

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 when to choose 'list', 'stats', or 'filter by entity' operations, nor does it reference sibling tools like memvid_stats or memvid_view that might overlap in functionality. There's no context about prerequisites or typical use cases.

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