memory_hipotesis

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. It discloses 'Read-only', which is the key safety trait, but says nothing about cost/latency of the backward traversal, whether results are exhaustive, or what the response contains.

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 short sentences with the alias relationship and core purpose front-loaded, followed by the safety trait. Nothing is wasted, though it is minimal to the point of under-specification.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should do more to characterize the return (ranked hypotheses, format). The schema covers inputs well, so the gap is mostly in behavioral and output context, keeping this at a minimum-viable 3.

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 action, effect, limit, and max_depth are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the structured fields provide, making the baseline 3 correct.

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+resource: abductive inference that finds plausible causes of an observed effect. The '[alias of cuba_hipotesis]' note clarifies its relationship to a sibling, but it doesn't distinguish its purpose from other causal/reasoning siblings like memory_contradiccion or memory_reflexion.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no routing between this alias and cuba_hipotesis or the other reasoning tools. The agent must infer usage from the one-line purpose statement alone.

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