memory_expediente

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the anti-repetition warning behavior triggered by proposed_action, but says nothing about return format, permissions, or result semantics.

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 compact sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no wasted words. The alias note is placed first, which is mildly noisy but does not bury the main function.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description must stand alone for a search tool. It is adequate for selection but thin on what a result set looks like or how the warning surfaces.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters including the anti-repetition meaning of proposed_action. The description largely restates what the schema provides, so 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?

States a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('past errors/solutions'), so an agent knows it retrieves prior failure/solution records. It does not distinguish itself from the many sibling tools (memory_remedio, memory_cronica, etc.) beyond noting it is an alias of cuba_expediente.

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 ('search past errors/solutions') and the proposed_action guard condition is stated, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance versus the numerous sibling memory_/cuba_ tools.

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