memvid_view

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

Annotations already provide key behavioral hints (read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, closed-world). The description adds minimal value by specifying 'content of a specific frame' but doesn't disclose additional traits like output format, error handling, 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 that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to parse and understand 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 annotations cover safety and idempotency, and the schema fully describes parameters, the description is minimally adequate. However, without an output schema, it doesn't explain what 'content' looks like (e.g., text, metadata, structured data), leaving a gap in completeness for a viewing tool.

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 in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining frame ID ranges or raw formatting details, so it meets the baseline for high schema 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 action ('View content') and resource ('specific frame'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'memvid_find' or 'memvid_timeline' that might also involve viewing frame content, 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 many sibling tools like 'memvid_find' or 'memvid_timeline' that might retrieve frame-related data, there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions for this specific viewing tool.

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