memory_receta

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses that entries are ranked by reliability rather than read count, that a failing recipe is dangerous because it is 'trusted', and that results must be reported via outcome or nothing is learned. The secret-handling behavior (allow_secret refusal) is documented in the param, 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?

Front-loaded with the core definition followed by the contrast and the feedback instruction. Every sentence earns its place, though 'worse than none, because it is trusted' is slightly rhetorical flourish 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 10-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description supplies the operational model (add/get/search/outcome lifecycle and ranking) that the schema alone lacks. It does not describe what get/search actually return, a minor gap given the absence of an output schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning beyond the schema by explaining the outcome feedback loop ('this is what teaches it') and the reliability-ranking model, giving the 'outcome' action a purpose the schema alone does not convey.

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?

It states a specific verb+resource ('PROCEDURAL MEMORY: how things are DONE') and contrasts directly with sibling memories ('The other tools remember what is TRUE; this one remembers what to DO'). An agent can distinguish it from memory_remedio/memory_expediente without opening a schema.

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?

It frames the usage context clearly (procedures vs facts) and instructs the agent to call action='outcome' after running a recipe, which is a concrete when-to-use rule. It does not name specific sibling alternatives (e.g. memory_remedio) or give exclusions, so it stops short of the top score.

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