Kratos-MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Apply retention policy' implies a mutation operation that could alter data persistence, but it doesn't specify whether this is reversible, what permissions are required, potential side effects, or how it interacts with other tools. For a security-related mutation tool, this lack of detail is a significant gap.

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 that gets straight to the point without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with two parameters and no complex context, though it could be more front-loaded with additional context if needed.

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 of a security-related mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like authorization needs, what 'apply' entails operationally, or expected outcomes. For a tool that likely alters data retention, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for 'memory_id' and 'policy' (including an enum). The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain what a 'memory_id' refers to or the implications of different policy values. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 'Apply retention policy to memory' clearly states the action (apply) and target (retention policy to memory), but it's somewhat vague about what 'memory' refers to in this context and doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'memory_forget' or 'security_gdpr_delete' which might have related functions. It's better than a tautology but lacks specificity about the scope and mechanism.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, when this tool is appropriate compared to siblings like 'security_gdpr_delete' or 'memory_forget', or any context for applying retention policies. This leaves the agent with no usage direction beyond the basic purpose.

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