memvid_when

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

Annotations provide clear behavioral hints (readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false, idempotentHint: true, openWorldHint: false), covering safety and idempotency. The description adds minimal context beyond this, only implying it searches memory files for temporal mentions. It doesn't describe response format, error conditions, or performance characteristics, but doesn't contradict annotations either.

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 extremely concise at just one sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and uses efficient phrasing. Every word earns its place, making it easy 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 (temporal search with 3 parameters), rich annotations, and 100% schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, without an output schema, it doesn't explain what results look like (e.g., timestamps, context snippets). The annotations cover safety but the description could better address the tool's specific 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 parameter documentation in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain query syntax, file format details, or result ordering). This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 tool's purpose as 'Temporal search - find when something was mentioned', which specifies the action (temporal search) and resource (mentions in memory files). It distinguishes from most siblings by focusing on time-related queries, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from tools like memvid_timeline or memvid_find that might have overlapping functionality.

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 prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or comparisons to sibling tools like memvid_find, memvid_timeline, or memvid_facts that might serve similar search functions. The user must infer usage from the description alone.

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