Chat with Personal Library

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It mentions 'MAG: Memory Augmented Generation' which hints at internal behavior, but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only or if it modifies data. The description implies it is a query tool, so likely safe, but lacks explicit safety cues.

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?

Description is two sentences, front-loaded with key purpose, and every sentence adds value. No fluff or repetition.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately conveys the tool's purpose and use case. However, it could mention the expected return format (e.g., text answers) or limitations (e.g., no real-time data). Still, for a simple query tool, it is reasonably complete.

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?

Input schema covers all three parameters (100% coverage). Description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it only restates the prompt parameter. The unique_id and session_id parameters are not mentioned in the description, so no extra value provided.

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?

Description clearly states the tool's function ('Ask questions across your entire video and memory library') and highlights it as the most powerful query tool combining video and memory. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'chat_with_video' (presumably video-specific) by emphasizing comprehensive answers including text memories.

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?

Description recommends this tool for general questions ('Recommended for general questions about your content'), providing context on when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives like search_audio or search_memories.

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