cuba_contexto

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the composition and prioritization order of the returned recall (recent writes, then WM mentions, then importance), which is real behavioral information. However, it says nothing about side-effect profile, whether the call mutates session state, or what happens when budget is exhausted.

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?

Front-loads the resource, then the usage directive, then the alias. Three sentences, no filler, though the parenthetical ordering clause makes the first sentence heavier than it needs to be.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description correctly compensates by describing what the returned context contains and in what priority order. Combined with the 100%-documented parameter, an agent has enough to invoke it, with only the side-effect profile 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with budget_chars documented as 'Max serialized size (default 12000)', so the baseline is 3. The description adds no further semantics about the budget parameter, and for a single-parameter tool that is acceptable but not additive.

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 concrete resource — the agent's visible context window — and enumerates its ingredients (working memory, agent notes keyed by Mcp-Client-Id, artifact index, recent-write recall). This is specific enough to distinguish it from sibling memory tools, though the enumeration is dense and the 'alias: memory_context' note blurs rather than sharpens the boundary.

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?

Gives explicit timing ('call at the start of a turn') and a named alternative action for a related need ('call cuba_cronica add BEFORE editing'). It stops short of stating when not to call it, but the routing guidance is clear and actionable.

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