memory_centinela

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the firing conditions (entity access, session start, error match), which is the core behavioral trait, but says nothing about persistence across sessions, what happens on expiry, authorization needs, or limits beyond the schema's own field notes.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler, routing metadata (alias) front-loaded and the purpose plus example immediately after. Every clause earns its place.

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 an 8-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the purpose and trigger semantics adequately, and the schema documents parameters and actions thoroughly. The gap is that the four actions (create/list/delete/check) and the tool's persistence model are left entirely to the schema.

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% and the parameter descriptions are unusually rich (enum meanings, allow_secret credential warning, cross-session note channel), so the baseline is 3. The description adds only conceptual framing ('when Y happens') and no details 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 resource and behavior: 'Prospective memory: triggers that fire on entity access, session start, or error match.' The example ('Remember to remind me about X when Y happens') nails the mental model. It only partly differentiates from siblings, noting it is an alias of cuba_centinela but not what the alias relationship implies for selection.

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 quoted use case implies when to reach for it, but there is no explicit when/when-not framing and no routing to alternatives such as memory_remedio, memory_alarma, or memory_pre_compact. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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