vm_memory_get

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the disclosure burden, and the sentence "This never executes it" is a genuinely valuable read-only guarantee about a tool whose name involves procedures. Beyond that, it says nothing about behavior on a missing/invalid id, permissions, or whether a single or multiple entries come back.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the key read-only guarantee is placed at the end where it reads as a caveat. Slightly more could be said without bloat, but nothing here is wasted.

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 one-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and the core safety property. It still leaves the id format and the not-found outcome unstated, which are the gaps an agent is most likely to hit.

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 schema has one required `id` at 0% description coverage, so the schema offers no meaning. The description partially compensates by establishing that the id selects "one procedure/idea," but it never states the id format (name vs. UUID vs. numeric handle), which is the one detail an agent needs to invoke this correctly.

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?

"Read one procedure/idea" gives a specific verb plus resource and signals single-item retrieval, which implicitly separates it from the plural sibling vm_memory_search. It stops short of naming the sibling it is not, leaving the distinction to inference.

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?

"check its status and scope" hints at inspection-for-review usage, and "never executes it" rules out one tempting alternative. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over vm_memory_search, vm_review, or vm_observe.

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