memory_policy

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does make one genuinely useful disclosure: "content-free" tells the agent the response excludes stored memory content, implying a safe, non-destructive read. It does not, however, state read-only status explicitly, auth requirements, or whether the output is cached/per-tenant, so the safety profile is still partly inferred.

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?

A single compact sentence with the verb front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the dense noun cluster ("content-free scope authorization, quota, retention, and usage state") trades a little clarity for brevity.

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 zero-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the categories of state returned, effectively serving as a lightweight return-value summary. It still omits whether the call is side-effect-free and whether it requires an authorized scope, which matters given the absence of annotations.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify in the input; the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter-related claims conflict with the empty schema.

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?

States a verb ("Report") and enumerates the reported state categories (scope authorization, quota, retention, usage), which separates it from read/write siblings like memory_get or memory_list. However, "content-free scope authorization" is opaque jargon that an agent may not parse, and it never says plainly that this returns policy/config metadata. Purpose is inferable but not crisp.

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 indication of when to call this versus alternatives such as memory_get, memory_list, or memory_search, and no prerequisites or trigger conditions are given. The nature of the tool is only implied by the noun "policy". A reader must guess its role from the description alone.

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