Sb3 Vm Clones

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does add meaningful context by stating the data is 'live' and 'proxied', indicating a current, indirect view rather than a static snapshot. However, it does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, side-effect-freedom, staleness, or what 'proxied' entails, so it is only minimally transparent.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose and the returned fields, with no wasted words. The parenthetical 'proxied' is cryptic, but conciseness itself is excellent.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-style census tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential invocation contract: what the tool is about and what data it reports. The main missing piece is sibling differentiation, but that is captured under usage_guidelines and does not block correct invocation given the schema and output schema.

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 zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so there is no parameter-semantic burden for the description to carry. Per the baseline for a parameterless tool, this is fully adequate; the description correctly adds no parameter detail.

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 identifies clones as the resource and enumerates the returned fields (name, pose, costume, sprite-locals), so an agent can tell this is a live clone inspection tool. It lacks an explicit verb, but 'census' strongly implies a listing/reading operation. It is distinguishable from sibling VM tools like sb3_vm_state or sb3_vm_threads, though it does not name them.

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 gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sb3_vm_state, sb3_vm_threads, or sb3_vm_monitors. 'Live' hints at temporal freshness but does not state that this is the read-only inspection option or when it should be preferred. Selection is left entirely to inference.

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