memory_tools

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 the 31-tool population, the lean-profile behavior, and a cost hint (detail='names' is cheapest). It does not describe auth requirements or latency beyond the cost signal, but for a non-destructive discovery tool that is a minor gap.

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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with the alias caveat followed by purpose, environment condition, and usage workflow. Every sentence carries information an agent needs — nothing is padding.

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 must cover the return shapes, and it does so at each detail level (names, summary, full schema). For a two-parameter discovery tool with no annotations this is largely complete, though it could say more about the naming/format of the discovered tools.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by framing the cost trade-off ('names' is cheapest) and clarifying that 'full' is what you need to call a tool correctly, which reinforces the enum semantics.

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 — find MemoryIndustry tools and load their schemas on demand — and immediately identifies itself as an alias of cuba_tools. It also distinguishes its role from the calling sibling by naming cuba_call as the follow-up action, so an agent knows what this tool is and is not.

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 exact condition under which this tool matters (CUBA_TOOL_PROFILE=lean, where only the everyday core is pre-loaded) and prescribes the workflow: search by capability, then call the result with cuba_call. It stops short of an explicit 'do not use this if the tool is already preloaded' exclusion, but the routing context is clear.

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