memory_call

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that execution goes through the same dispatcher as a direct call and behaviour is identical, which is exactly the behavioral guarantee an agent needs. It does not mention error handling, permissions, or failure modes, so not a 5.

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: identity/scope, discovery path, behavioral guarantee. Front-loaded with the alias and purpose; zero 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?

For a dispatcher with no annotations and no output schema, it covers scope, discovery, and behavioral equivalence. It could be richer on what happens if the tool name is wrong or unknown, but nothing essential to a correct call is 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 coverage is 100% and both parameters have schema descriptions defining the shape, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a small navigation hint (use cuba_tools with detail='full' to find args) but does not explain the args envelope or name format beyond the 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?

States a specific verb (invoke) and resource (any cuba-memorys tool by name), and explicitly frames itself as a dispatcher/alias of cuba_call, which is a sibling. An agent can immediately tell it apart from the pre-loaded direct tools.

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 when: tools not pre-loaded in this session. Gives an explicit alternative path: discover them first with cuba_tools using detail='full' to see exact arguments. That is a full usage recipe.

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