Inspect Micro record retention

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context by specifying that it returns the policy and an 'exact live prune preview', and that purchases and entitlements are excluded from retention. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the action and object, and the second adds a meaningful scope exclusion. It is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 simple read-only inspection tool with one optional parameter, full schema coverage, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description is complete. An agent has enough information to select and invoke this tool correctly without further clarification.

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 coverage is 100%: the only parameter, 'path', is already fully documented in the schema with a clear description and default behavior. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, which is acceptable given the schema handles it.

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 leads with a specific verb ('Read') and a clear resource: the linked project's record-retention policy plus its live prune preview. It also distinguishes itself from mutating siblings like micro_retention_set and micro_retention_prune by framing this as inspection only.

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 clearly positions the tool for inspection: reading the retention policy and prune preview. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say 'use micro_retention_set to modify', but the read-only framing plus the sibling names make the intended context clear.

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