cuba_tools

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose the key behavioral trait: the lean profile changes what is pre-loaded, which explains why this tool exists. It also hints at cost (detail='names' is cheapest). It doesn't explicitly label the operation as read-only or describe failure behavior when nothing matches, leaving a small gap.

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?

Four dense sentences, each carrying distinct information (purpose, server/profile context, search-then-call workflow, detail cost tradeoff), with the core action front-loaded. No filler.

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 must cover the return shape, and the detail parameter descriptions do explain names/summary/full. For a two-param discovery tool that is nearly complete; only the empty-result and profile-default edge cases are unstated.

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 genuine meaning: query matches names and descriptions by capability, and detail='full' is what you need to call correctly while 'names' is cheapest. This gives cost/usage intent beyond the enum values themselves.

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 precise verb+resource (find tools and load their schemas on demand) and frames itself as the discovery layer for a 31-tool server. It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming cuba_call as the consumer of what it finds, so an agent knows this lists/schemas rather than executes.

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?

Explains exactly when it is needed (under CUBA_TOOL_PROFILE=lean only the core is pre-loaded, so the rest must be discovered here) and prescribes the workflow: search by capability, then call via cuba_call. Example queries ('audit', 'decay', 'contradiction', 'session') make the search surface concrete.

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