memvid_models

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

Annotations already provide key behavioral hints (readOnlyHint: true, idempotentHint: true, destructiveHint: false), so the description doesn't need to repeat these. It adds minimal context by specifying 'embedding models', but doesn't disclose additional traits like rate limits, auth needs, or output format. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. It earns its place by clearly stating what the tool does, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 low complexity (one optional parameter) and rich annotations, the description is adequate but incomplete. It lacks output details (no output schema provided) and doesn't clarify the scope of 'available' models (e.g., local vs. remote). For a simple list tool, it's minimally viable but has gaps.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'model_type' fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as explaining the significance of the model types or default behavior. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'List available embedding models' clearly states the action (list) and resource (embedding models), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from other list-like siblings such as 'memvid_tables' or 'memvid_schema', which could also involve listing operations, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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_find', 'memvid_search'), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions for selecting this tool over others, leaving usage unclear.

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