memory_cronica

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden but does add real behavioral context: auto-creation of missing entities, a dedup gate blocking near-duplicates, and the differentiation of episode vs timeline storage. It says nothing about destructive delete semantics, batch limits, or the credential-refusal/allow_secret exposure behavior that matter for a mutating multi-action 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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the alias and the core operation, then the episodic/timeline additions and two behavioral caveats. No filler, though the alias-first framing arguably wastes the opening clause.

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 7-action tool with 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description sketches the shape but leaves delete, list, and batch_add behavior unspecified and gives no return-value or pagination context. Adequate as a minimum-viable overview, not complete.

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 the schema already documents all 10 parameters including enum values for action, source, and observation_type. The description adds only loose mapping of episode_add/episode_list/timeline to the action enum, which the schema itself restates — baseline 3 is 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?

Names a concrete verb+resource ('Attach facts/lessons/decisions to entities') and enumerates the additional functions (episodic memories, timeline view). The alias note points to cuba_cronica, which is a sibling, but nothing states how this differs functionally from memory_remedio, memory_expediente, or cuba_cronica beyond the alias equivalence.

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?

Usage is implied rather than directed: the description explains that episode_add/episode_list handle events and timeline gives chronological history, so an agent can infer when to pick each action. It never says when to prefer this tool over the many memory_*/cuba_* siblings, nor any prerequisites.

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