memvid_version

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

Annotations already indicate this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation with a closed world. The description adds value by specifying it prints 'version information,' which clarifies the type of data returned beyond what annotations provide. However, it doesn't detail format, output structure, or any rate limits, keeping it from a perfect 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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it ideal for quick comprehension by an AI agent.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, read-only, no output schema), the description is adequate but minimal. It doesn't explain what 'version information' includes (e.g., software version, build details) or the output format, which could be helpful for an agent to understand the result. With no output schema, more detail would improve completeness.

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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so the description doesn't need to compensate. It appropriately doesn't mention parameters, earning a baseline score. A 5 is reserved for cases where the description adds significant semantic context beyond an empty 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 'Print memvid version information' clearly states the verb ('Print') and resource ('memvid version information'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like 'memvid_status' or 'memvid_stats', which might also provide system information, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 siblings like 'memvid_status' and 'memvid_stats' that might overlap in providing system information, there's no indication of when this specific version tool is preferred or what distinguishes it from other informational tools.

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