memory_pizarra

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses that entries auto-expire by ttl_seconds (default 3600 per schema) and are bulk-purged by the cuba_zafra REM cycle. This is real behavioral context an agent needs. It does not discuss auth requirements or exactly what clear/read return, leaving some gaps.

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 identity, with the usage guidance following. No filler, though the parenthetical version/author citation is decorative rather than load-bearing.

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 no-output-schema, five-parameter write/read/clear tool, the description covers the lifecycle (auto-expire, REM purge) and usage context adequately. It omits return-value behavior for read/clear, but overall an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 five parameters including the allow_secret caveat. The description adds TTL context but no per-parameter syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides. 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 resource (working memory buffer/scratchpad) with a clear verb-neutral framing of what it stores and its TTL-bounded, orthogonal-to-episodic/semantic nature. It even flags itself as an alias of cuba_pizarra. It does not clearly enumerate that the tool is a multi-action (write/read/clear) surface, so the agent must open the schema to learn the actual operations.

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?

Gives concrete when-to-use context: inter-step plan state during long-horizon tasks, tentative observations, cross-tool-call reminders within a session. The 'orthogonal to episodic and semantic memory' clause implicitly routes the agent away from those siblings, but no sibling is named or excluded explicitly.

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