get_retention_mechanics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. The description only lists the content and does not mention any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or return format. For a simple info-retrieval tool this is a minor gap, but it remains undisclosed.

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 sentence that front-loads the key information (the 6 mechanics), lists them parenthetically, and summarizes the added value (application and failure risk). Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 simplicity of the tool and the presence of sibling tools that cover other topics, the description is complete for a knowledge-retrieval tool. It clearly states what content is included (mechanics, application, failure risk). It does not specify output format, but no output schema exists and the content scope is sufficiently defined.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate when there are no parameters, and the description does not need to add parameter semantics. No conflicts or gaps exist.

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 identifies the tool as providing the 6 retention mechanics, enumerates them, and specifies the included information (application and failure risk). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_hook_mechanics (hooks vs. retention) and get_cta_rules (calls to action), making the purpose unmistakable.

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?

Usage context is implied by the tool's name and content: it is for when you need to know retention mechanics. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of when not to use it. The description does not reference sibling tools or provide decision criteria.

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