memvid_timeline

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this—it implies a display/visualization action but doesn't mention output format, pagination, or performance characteristics. 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 with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place by directly conveying the tool's function.

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 5 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and annotations covering safety, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no output schema and a read-only operation that likely returns structured data (a timeline), the description could better hint at the return format or data shape to aid the agent.

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 parameter descriptions (e.g., 'Path to the .mv2 memory file' for 'file'). The description doesn't add meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining how 'limit' interacts with filtering or default behaviors. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the comprehensive 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 'Show chronological timeline of frames' clearly states the verb ('show') and resource ('chronological timeline of frames'), making the purpose understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'memvid_view' or 'memvid_facts', but the specific focus on timeline visualization is reasonably distinct.

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_view', 'memvid_facts', 'memvid_memories'), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or comparisons. The agent must infer usage from the 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.