View Memory Policy

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description discloses the specific contents of the policy report: effective grants, denials, accessible and owned keyspaces, creator capabilities, provisioning constraints, and policy health. It also explains that the engine filters the result and remains the authorization boundary, adding useful behavioral context.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every subsequent sentence contributes useful detail or parameter semantics. There is no redundant filler beyond the natural restatement of the tool's purpose.

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 zero-required-parameter read-only query with no output schema, the description is sufficient: it explains the optional input, defaults, result contents, and safety posture. An agent can invoke the tool correctly without needing additional undocumented context.

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 carries the burden for the single store parameter. It adds meaning by explaining that store is optional, what it selects for inspection, and that it defaults to MONTYCAT_URI or MONTYCAT_STORE. This adequately compensates for the sparse schema, though it does not mention accepted store formats.

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 verb (view) and resource (the effective Montycat governance policy for the configured owner), and it expands on what the report contains. It does not explicitly contrast this tool with montycat_policy_history or montycat_policy_explain, so sibling differentiation is only implicit.

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 provided about when to use this tool versus related policy or keyspace tools. The only usage-related context is the optional store parameter and its environment-variable default, which describes invocation rather than tool selection.

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