memvid_verify

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

Annotations provide clear hints: readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, indicating a safe, non-destructive, repeatable operation with closed-world behavior. The description adds minimal context by specifying 'integrity' verification, but doesn't elaborate on what 'integrity' entails (e.g., checksums, data corruption) or performance implications of the 'deep' parameter. 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 sentence with zero waste, front-loading the core action ('verify integrity') and resource ('memory file'). It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema), annotations cover safety and idempotency well, but the description lacks details on what 'integrity' means, expected outcomes, or error conditions. Without an output schema, the agent must infer return values. It's adequate but has clear gaps in behavioral context.

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 path to .mv2 memory file, 'deep' as boolean for thorough verification). The description doesn't add meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining the trade-offs of 'deep' verification or file format details. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate given the schema's comprehensive 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 clearly states the verb ('verify') and resource ('integrity of a memory file'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'memvid_verify_single_file', which appears to serve a similar verification function, leaving some ambiguity about when to use one versus the other.

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, such as 'memvid_verify_single_file' or other verification-related tools like 'memvid_audit'. It lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the tool name alone.

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