memory_call

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the call 'goes through the same dispatcher as a direct call, so behaviour is identical', which reassures about equivalence. However, it says nothing about error behavior for unknown tool names, argument validation failures, or any side effects, leaving notable gaps for a mutation-capable meta-tool.

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 with no filler; the alias note and the core dispatch capability are front-loaded, followed by the discovery instruction. Efficient, though the bracketed alias prefix is slightly awkward as an opener.

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?

There is no output schema, so return values need not be explained, and the description notes behavior is identical to a direct call. For a 2-parameter dispatcher with a nested args object, this is largely complete; only failure modes for bad tool names are unaddressed.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds only the hint that detail='full' reveals 'the exact arguments', which is a mild supplement rather than new syntax or format guidance. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Invoke any MemoryIndustry tool by name — including the ones not pre-loaded in this session.' This clearly identifies it as a generic dynamic dispatcher, and it names its relationship to cuba_call (alias) and cuba_tools (discovery path). It does not fully distinguish itself from the many sibling memory_* tools, but the dispatcher role 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?

Gives an explicit workflow: discover tools first with cuba_tools using detail='full' to see exact arguments. This tells the agent when this tool is appropriate (calling tools not pre-loaded). It stops short of stating when NOT to use it, e.g., preferring a direct pre-loaded tool when available.

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