vmn_inspect

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It states the tool 'inspects' metadata, suggesting a read-only operation, but it does not disclose whether the operation is purely read-only, what the metadata format looks like, whether it errors on non-existent hashes, or any side effects. The limited description leaves important behavioral expectations unaddressed.

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 clear sentence with no extraneous content. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, though it lacks any additional useful context. It earns a 4 for being appropriately concise and direct.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and a single required parameter, the description does not explain the return value or structure of the metadata returned. An agent might need to know what 'catalog metadata' contains or how to interpret the response. The description is minimally sufficient for invoking the tool but incomplete for understanding the full context of its use.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents the single 'hash' parameter. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, but it does clarify that the hash is the SHA-256 root hash of the memory object being inspected, which is consistent with the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 that the tool inspects catalog metadata for a memory shard using a SHA-256 root hash. It distinguishes itself from siblings like vmn_recall and vmn_search by specifying 'catalog metadata' rather than content or search results. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from vmn_list, though the hash-based selection makes this mostly clear.

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 implies the tool is used when you have a specific known hash and need to inspect metadata, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus siblings like vmn_recall or vmn_search. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, leaving usage context partially implied rather than explicitly guided.

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