vrm_retrieve

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'JIT-verify' and 'valid memories' but does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it has side effects (e.g., the 'touch' parameter suggests updating last access time), or what happens to invalid candidates. This is a significant transparency gap for a tool that may mutate state.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words. However, it is under-specified, sacrificing necessary context for brevity. It could be expanded with relevant behavioral details while still remaining concise.

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 has four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not cover return value format, error behavior, side effects, or the meaning of key terms like 'candidates' and 'valid'. It leaves the agent with significant uncertainty.

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 0%, and the description adds no information about any of the four parameters (query, limit, touch, includeStale). It does not explain what 'candidates' refers to or how parameters influence the JIT verification. The description is entirely unhelpful for parameter understanding.

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 uses a specific verb 'verify' and resource 'memories', suggesting a retrieval/validation operation. However, 'candidates' is undefined and the purpose is vague, lacking clarity on what inputs are expected or how verification works. It does not clearly distinguish from siblings like vrm_search or vrm_list, as 'retrieve' with 'verify' is ambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or mentions of sibling tools. The context is entirely implied by the tool name, which is insufficient for correct selection.

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