cuba_tools

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses the server's 31-tool count, the lean profile behavior, that query matches names and descriptions, and that detail='names' is cheapest while 'full' returns exact argument schemas. It lacks auth/rate-limit notes, but for a read-only discovery tool this is strong context.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose first, then environmental context, then usage pattern, then detail-level guidance. Every sentence adds useful information without repetition.

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 2-parameter discovery tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: why the tool exists, how to search, how detail levels affect results, and what to do with found tools. It could mention output limits or empty-result behavior, but the definition is largely 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds value beyond the schema by giving concrete capability search examples ('audit', 'decay', 'contradiction', 'session') and characterizing detail='names' as cheapest and 'full' as the exact call 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?

The description states a specific verb (find/load) and resource (MemoryIndustry tools and their schemas), and explains that the tool exposes non-preloaded tools on demand. An agent can immediately tell this is a discovery/schema-loading tool rather than a direct memory operation.

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?

It clearly explains when the tool is needed: under CUBA_TOOL_PROFILE=lean, only the core is preloaded and the rest must be found here. It also routes the agent to cuba_call for invocation after discovery, though it does not explicitly discuss when to bypass this tool or how it differs from the sibling memory_tools.

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