memvid_tables

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

Annotations indicate read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior, which the description doesn't contradict. The description adds value by specifying that it lists 'internal tables and structures', implying a metadata or schema-like output, though it doesn't detail format, pagination, or error handling. With annotations covering safety, this extra context earns a good score.

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 with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to parse quickly, which is ideal for conciseness.

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 annotations (read-only, non-destructive) and a simple input schema, but no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on return values or behavioral nuances, leaving some gaps for the agent to infer.

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 the parameter 'file' documented as 'Path to the .mv2 memory file'. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as file format details or constraints, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating further.

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 internal tables and structures' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('internal tables and structures'), but it's vague about what these tables/structures are (e.g., from a memory file) and doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'memvid_schema' or 'memvid_view' which might relate to similar concepts. It provides a basic purpose but lacks specificity.

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. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'memvid_schema', 'memvid_view'), the description doesn't mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on the name alone.

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