memcp_retention_preview

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

In the absence of annotations, the description discloses that no changes are made, describes candidate criteria (stale, low-access, past retention) and immunity conditions (high importance, frequent access, protected tags). It does not mention authentication or rate limits, but captures key behavioral traits.

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 two sentences plus a parameter list, front-loading the core purpose and behavior. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or excess.

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 tool's complexity (dry-run preview, two parameters), the description covers purpose, behavior, and parameter semantics. An output schema exists, so return format explanation is not required. It lacks explicit sibling differentiation but is otherwise complete.

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 schema has 0% parameter descriptions, so the description compensates by explaining 'archive_days' and 'purge_days' with their purpose and defaults. However, it states defaults from env (30, 180 days) while schema shows default 0, creating potential confusion.

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 is a dry-run preview for archiving and purging, with explicit verb 'Preview' and resource 'retention'. It distinguishes from the sibling 'memcp_retention_run' which actually executes the action, by stating 'no changes made'.

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 implies safe usage via 'dry-run, no changes made' but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'memcp_retention_run'. The guidance is implicit rather than direct.

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