memvid_who

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, covering the core safety and behavioral profile. The description adds minimal context beyond this - it implies the tool retrieves information rather than modifies it, which aligns with annotations. However, it doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or what specific 'entity information' includes.

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 two phrases, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place with no wasted text. The structure moves directly from general function to specific action without unnecessary elaboration.

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 (entity lookup with 2 required parameters), rich annotations covering safety and behavior, but no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but doesn't explain what 'entity information' includes, the format of results, or how it differs from similar tools. The annotations help but don't fully compensate for the description's brevity.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameters beyond what the schema provides. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting for parameter documentation.

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 'Entity lookup - find information about an entity', which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from siblings like memvid_find, memvid_search, or memvid_ask by focusing on entity information retrieval rather than general finding or questioning. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all potential sibling tools in the extensive list.

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, memvid_ask, memvid_search, and memvid_facts that might overlap in functionality, there's no indication of when this specific entity lookup tool is preferred. The description lacks any context about appropriate use cases or exclusions.

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