memvid_schema

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds value by specifying the two operational modes ('infer' and 'show schema summary'), which gives context about what the tool actually does behaviorally. There's 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 extremely concise at just 6 words, front-loading the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place, though it could benefit from slightly more structure to clarify the two modes. It avoids redundancy and waste.

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 has 3 parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering safety aspects, the description is minimally adequate but leaves gaps. It doesn't explain the relationship between the two boolean parameters, what 'infer' actually does, or what format the summary takes. For a tool with multiple operational modes, more context would be helpful.

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 all parameters well-documented in the input schema. The description mentions 'infer or show schema summary', which aligns with the boolean parameters but doesn't add meaningful semantic context beyond what the schema already provides. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate given the comprehensive schema coverage.

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 states the tool performs 'schema operations - infer or show schema summary', which provides a general purpose but lacks specificity about what resource it operates on (memory files) and doesn't clearly distinguish it from sibling tools like memvid_tables or memvid_stats that might also provide schema-related information. The description is vague about the exact nature of the 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 any prerequisites, context for choosing between 'infer' and 'summary' modes, or how it differs from other schema-related tools in the sibling list. The agent receives no usage direction beyond the basic function.

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