vrm_retrieve

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'JIT-verify' (just-in-time verification) and 'return valid memories', but doesn't explain what verification entails, whether it's a read-only operation, what 'stale' memories are, or what 'touch' does. For a tool with 4 parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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. While it may be too brief for completeness, it earns full marks for conciseness as every word contributes meaning.

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 complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, 0% schema coverage), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how verification works, or the semantics of key parameters like 'includeStale' and 'touch'. For a memory retrieval tool with multiple configuration options, this leaves too much undefined.

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%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It mentions 'candidates' (implied to relate to the 'query' parameter) and 'valid memories' (implied output), but doesn't clarify what 'query' should contain, what 'limit' controls, what 'includeStale' means, or what 'touch' does. The description adds minimal value beyond the bare schema.

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 states the tool's purpose as 'JIT-verify candidates and return valid memories', which is somewhat vague. It specifies a verb ('verify') and resource ('memories'), but doesn't clearly distinguish what 'candidates' are or how this differs from sibling tools like vrm_search or vrm_list. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity.

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 like vrm_search or vrm_list. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone, which is insufficient for optimal tool selection.

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