memvid_sketch

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, suggesting it's a non-destructive, non-idempotent operation that may modify data. The description adds context by specifying 'build sketches for all frames' or 'show sketch statistics', but doesn't elaborate on behavioral traits like side effects, rate limits, or authentication needs beyond annotations. No contradiction with annotations is present.

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 phrase: 'Sketch operations (SimHash) - build or show stats'. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and uses minimal words, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating build and stats functions).

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 no output schema and annotations that only cover basic hints, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what 'sketch operations' involve, the output format for stats or build results, error conditions, or how parameters interact (e.g., can both 'build' and 'stats' be true?). For a tool with 3 parameters and potential data modification, more context is needed.

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 descriptions for 'file', 'build', and 'stats' parameters. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'build sketches for all frames' and 'show sketch statistics', which loosely aligns with parameter purposes but doesn't provide additional syntax, format, or usage details beyond the schema.

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 'Sketch operations (SimHash) - build or show stats', which identifies the action (build/show stats) and resource (sketches/SimHash). However, it's vague about what 'sketch operations' entail and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like memvid_stats or memvid_process_queue that might handle similar statistical or processing tasks.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions 'build or show stats' but doesn't specify contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions. Sibling tools like memvid_stats might overlap, but there's no explicit comparison or usage rules.

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