cuba_archivo

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

The description fully discloses core behaviors: append-only, SHA-256 hash chain, UPDATE/DELETE blocked at trigger level with admin bypass. No annotations were provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not mention rate limits or payload size limits, but the behavioral details are substantial.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by technical details and usage guidance. No extraneous content. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description covers the tool's main purpose, security model, and available operations. Given no output schema, it could mention return values (e.g., verify returns chain results, tail returns events, append returns success). However, the provided details are sufficient for an audit log tool with moderate complexity.

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%, providing descriptions for all four parameters. The description adds value by specifying default limits for 'verify/tail' and clarifying that payload and event_action are for 'append'. This goes beyond the schema's attribute descriptions.

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?

Description clearly identifies the tool as a 'Tamper-evident audit log' with specific operations (append, verify, tail) and technical details (SHA-256 hash chain, append-only). This clearly defines the resource and verb, and the unique hash chain feature distinguishes it from 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?

The description explicitly tells when to use each action ('Use 'verify' to walk the chain...'tail' to read recent events...'append' to add a new event'). However, it does not discuss when not to use the tool or alternatives among siblings.

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