check_retention_expired

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'check', implying a read-only operation, but does not state the return value, edge cases (e.g., maxRetentionMs null), or whether accessType affects the result. This is a minimal restatement of the tool name with 'TTL policy' added, offering no real behavioral transparency.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the action ('Check') and the object ('data retention'), with the TTL policy context appended. It is efficient with no filler, though it could briefly note what the function returns.

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 three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to describe the return type or semantics, and does not account for accessType's role or null retention limits. The agent is left without sufficient context to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 description adds no parameter-level detail. Schema coverage is 67% (accessedAt and maxRetentionMs have descriptions, accessType only has an enum). The description does not explain accessType's semantic role or how maxRetentionMs null is handled, leaving the uncovered parameter unexplained.

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 uses a specific verb ('check') and resource ('data retention'), and further clarifies the mechanism ('based on TTL policy'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling check_* tools like check_purpose_permitted or check_usage_permitted, making the tool's purpose immediately clear.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is for retention-expiry checks, but it does not mention any exclusions or conditions where another tool would be more appropriate, nor does it reference sibling tools.

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