memory_alarma

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 disclose non-obvious traits: auto-pattern detection with a ≥3-similar warning threshold, and Hebbian boosting of similar errors for retrieval. It still omits whether the record persists, side effects, or the return shape, but it adds real behavioral context beyond the raw schema.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the alias and purpose, then the two behavioral notes. No filler; every clause conveys information an agent can act on.

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 5-parameter, nested-object tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the distinctive behaviors but leaves open what the call returns and whether/how the error is stored. Adequate but with clear gaps given the tool's complexity.

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%, including detailed guidance on allow_secret and the context object shape, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing about parameter semantics, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 specific verb and resource ('Report errors immediately') and flags that this is an alias of cuba_alarma, so an agent knows it duplicates that sibling. It does not differentiate itself from the broader error/history siblings like memory_expediente or memory_remedio, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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?

The imperative 'Report errors immediately' implies the usage context (capture an error as it occurs), but there is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not, and no named alternative for related needs. Usage is only implied.

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