memory_policy

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It clearly signals a read-only introspection operation via 'Return' rather than 'set', 'update', or 'create', and it specifies the two pieces of state returned: retention policy and active write mode. This is sufficient for a zero-parameter getter.

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, front-loaded sentence contains exactly the necessary information: the action and the returned data. There is no filler, no redundancy, and no buried context.

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 no-argument, read-only policy tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It could briefly explain what 'active write mode' means or note when to prefer this over memory_audit, but nothing required to invoke the tool correctly is missing.

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 no parameters and schema coverage is trivially complete, so there are no argument semantics for the description to add. The baseline of 4 for a zero-parameter tool applies.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Return') and names a precise resource: the automatic persistent-memory retention policy and active write mode. This is distinct from the sibling memory_read, memory_search, memory_propose, and memory_audit tools, so an agent can identify what this tool is for.

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 guidance is given about when to call this tool instead of memory_read, memory_search, or memory_audit. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or routing hints, so the intended usage context must be inferred from the tool name and description.

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