memory_decreto

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 and it discloses essentially nothing: not that records persist and are searchable/exportable, not that the secret heuristic can refuse input, not that this is a lightweight alias. The allow_secret schema text carries the one real behavioral signal, not the description.

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?

One compact bracketed alias note plus a single verb-resource sentence; front-loaded and free of padding.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin: it never enumerates the three actions, never explains persistence or retrieval scope, and leaves the agent to reconstruct intent from the schema alone.

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 every parameter including allow_secret and its implications is already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, which is the expected baseline 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?

Names a specific verb pair (record/query) and resource (architecture/design decisions), and discloses it is an alias of cuba_decreto, which helps an agent reason about duplicate siblings. However it omits the third supported action 'list', so the purpose statement is not fully accurate.

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?

There is no guidance on when to record versus query, when to use list, or how this differs from related siblings like memory_proyecto or memory_contradiccion. The agent must infer usage entirely from the action enum.

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