Recall Review Packet Archive Retention Plan

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces that no files are deleted, no fixtures written, and no misses closed. This is consistent but adds minimal new information beyond the annotations.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that starts with the verb 'Plan' and concisely states purpose and exclusions. No extraneous words.

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?

The description omits crucial context: what 'keep' represents (likely days), pagination via limit/offset, and the purpose of archive_dir. Despite annotations and output schema, the lack of parameter explanations leaves the tool incomplete for correct invocation.

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% and the description does not explain any parameter (keep, limit, offset, archive_dir). The agent cannot infer meaning or constraints beyond the schema defaults and types.

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 the tool plans pruning for recall review packet archives, and explicitly lists actions it does NOT perform (deleting files, writing fixtures, closing misses). This distinguishes it from other archive-related tools like memory.recall_review_packet_archive_status. However, the verb 'plan' could be more specific about the output.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools (e.g., memory.recall_review_packet, memory.recall_review_packet_archive_status), the agent has no context for selecting this one.

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