memvid_verify_single_file

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

Annotations cover key behavioral traits: readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds minimal context beyond this, only specifying 'integrity' verification without detailing what that entails (e.g., checksums, validation methods). It doesn't contradict annotations, but provides limited additional behavioral insight.

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 ('Verify integrity of a single frame') that is front-loaded and wastes no words. Every part earns its place by specifying the action, scope, and resource concisely.

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 (verification operation with 2 parameters), rich annotations (covering safety and idempotency), and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states the purpose but lacks details on verification methods, error handling, or output format, which could help an agent use it more effectively.

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, 'frame_id' as non-negative integer). The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without compensating value.

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 'Verify integrity of a single frame' clearly states the action (verify) and resource (frame), and the title 'Verify Frame' reinforces this. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'memvid_verify' (which might verify multiple frames or something broader), leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this specific tool.

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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'memvid_verify' (which likely handles multiple frames or different verification scopes) or other verification-related tools, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied by the name but not explicitly stated.

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