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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. 'Return' suggests a read-only operation, but the description does not explain whether the tool computes, retrieves, or generates these values, how TTLs and persistence decisions are derived, or what side effects, if any, occur.

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, efficient sentence with no filler and front-loads the primary verb and resource. It is appropriately concise, though it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity.

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 annotations, 0% parameter coverage, and four optional parameters, the description is too thin to enable correct invocation. The presence of an output schema partially helps, but the lack of parameter semantics and behavioral context leaves significant gaps.

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 explain the four optional parameters. It mentions memory classes, workflow profiles, TTLs, and persistence decisions, but does not map them to decision, persistent, workflow_id, or memory_class_id, nor explain how these parameters filter or affect the returned data.

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 a clear action ('Return') and identifies a specific set of resources: agent memory classes, workflow profiles, TTLs, and persistence decisions. This distinguishes it from sibling boundary packs focused on handoff, browser, context egress, or stdio launch, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling boundary packs or other recipes tools. The phrase 'agent memory' implies the context, but no explicit conditions, exclusions, or alternative routing are provided.

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