memvid_state

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 this is for 'state management' and 'show current memory state,' which implies it's a read-only diagnostic tool. However, it doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'state' entails (e.g., memory usage, file status). 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 concise with two phrases: 'State management' and 'show current memory state.' It's front-loaded with the main purpose. However, 'State management' is somewhat redundant with 'show current memory state,' and it could be more structured by integrating the two ideas into a single, clearer sentence.

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 rich annotations (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive) and full schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no output schema and many sibling tools, it lacks details on what 'current memory state' includes, how it differs from other state-related tools, or expected return values. For a diagnostic tool in a complex server, 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 clear descriptions for both parameters: 'file' as a path to a .mv2 memory file and 'show' as a boolean to display current state. The description doesn't add meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining the .mv2 format or what 'show' toggles. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since 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 'State management - show current memory state' states the tool's purpose as showing current memory state, which is clear but vague. It doesn't specify what 'memory state' includes or how it differs from sibling tools like memvid_status or memvid_view that might also display state information. The description lacks the specificity needed to distinguish it from similar tools in the server.

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 that might relate to memory state (e.g., memvid_status, memvid_view, memvid_memories), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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