memory_jornada

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 does add real behavioral context: the optional project arg upserts into brain_projects and later handlers scope reads/writes to it. However, it never states that start/end persist data, whether sessions are retrievable, or what the credential-refusal path means for callers beyond the schema text.

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, front-loaded with the alias and the core purpose, then the versioned behavior note. Minimal waste, though the 'v0.8' and 'subsequent handlers' phrasing is somewhat internal-facing.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description must cover behavior on its own. It covers the project-binding side effect but says nothing about return values for list/current or what a completed session record contains, leaving a gap for a 7-parameter mutation tool.

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 action enum, allow_secret's credential guard, and project's global-fallback behavior) is already documented in the schema. The description's project note largely restates what the schema says, so 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?

States a specific verb and resource: track working sessions with goals and outcomes, and flags itself as an alias of cuba_jornada. This distinguishes it from sibling memory tools at a high level, though many siblings (jornada, cronica, eco) share the 'session/memory' family and the description doesn't contrast them explicitly.

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 by enumerating the session lifecycle (start/end goals and outcomes) and by the project-binding note, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use versus cuba_jornada or memory_cronica/cuba_cronica. The agent must infer that this is the read/track counterpart.

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