policy_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states what the tool returns but does not mention side effects (e.g., read-only, no mutation) or any potential caveats like caching or latency. For a status tool, the read-only nature is generally assumed, but not explicitly stated.

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 highly concise and well-structured. It starts with the action ('Get'), states the object ('current status of the memory policy'), and then lists the return fields in a clear, bullet-free sentence. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 that there is no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns. It lists all three fields (epsilon, action distribution, update count) so a user knows what to expect. It does not dive into the meaning of these fields, but that is typically outside the scope of a tool description. Overall, it is complete for its purpose.

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, so schema coverage is 100% by default. The baseline score of 3 applies, and the description appropriately avoids mentioning any parameters since none 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 states the tool's purpose: to get the current status of the memory policy. It also specifies the exact data returned (epsilon, action distribution, update count), making the tool's function unambiguous. It is distinct from sibling tools like policy_decide or memory_stats, so no confusion arises.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, as a status getter, its usage context is somewhat implicit. It would benefit from a note such as 'Use this to monitor the policy state' or 'Compare with policy_decide for actions,' but its absence is not a major flaw.

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