memory_tools

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 the 31-tool count, the lean-profile gating behavior, the cheapness ordering of detail modes, and that 'full' is required for correct invocation. It omits return-shape/cost specifics beyond the detail hint.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the alias/identity and the on-demand loading model before the search-then-call workflow. Each sentence carries information, though the profile/alias framing is somewhat heavy.

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 exists, so the description properly explains what each detail level returns and how to proceed to invocation. For a 2-param discovery tool this is essentially complete, missing only explicit pagination/listing-size behavior.

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, but the description adds real interpretation: query matches names and descriptions and can be omitted to list everything, and detail='names' is cheapest while 'full' yields the exact argument schema needed to call a tool.

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: find cuba-memory tools and load their schemas on demand, plus its alias relationship to cuba_tools. An agent immediately understands this is a discovery/loader tool and how it differs from the concrete sibling tools.

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?

Explains the triggering context (under CUBA_TOOL_PROFILE=lean the non-core tools live here) and the follow-up workflow ('call what you find with cuba_call'). It does not state explicit exclusions, but the when-to-use condition is clear.

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