memory_context

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose useful behavior: the composition and ranking order of the window ('recent writes, then WM mentions, then importance'). However, it says nothing about permissions, side effects, idempotency, or cost of calling it, so the behavioral picture is partial.

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?

The alias is front-loaded, then content, then usage, in a tight block with no filler. The parenthetical ranking clauses are dense but informative. Slightly crowded, but every clause carries meaning.

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 read-style context-retrieval tool with no output schema and one well-documented parameter, the description explains what the caller gets back and when to invoke it. It is complete enough to call correctly, missing only edge behavior like truncation or empty-window cases.

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%, so budget_chars is already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about the budget parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

The description names the resource (the visible context window) and enumerates its exact contents: working memory, agent notes, artifact index, and recall of recent writes. It also flags itself as an alias of cuba_contexto, which helps an agent reconcile the duplicate. It is specific, though it never uses a clear retrieval verb like 'returns' or 'loads'.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger ('Call at the start of a turn') and a related-tool instruction ('call cuba_cronica add BEFORE editing'). That is real when-to-use guidance with a named alternative, but it stops short of stating when NOT to use it or how it differs from the many other memory_* retrieval siblings.

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