cuba_call

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that behavior is identical to direct calls via the same dispatcher, which is helpful. However, it does not mention potential side effects, error handling for unknown tools, or permission requirements, leaving gaps in transparency.

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?

The description is concise (two sentences), front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence adds value—first defines the action, second gives usage guidance and behavioral note. No extraneous words.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity as a generic caller and lack of output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains how to discover other tools and confirms identical behavior. Missing details like error messages or argument handling corner cases, but these are minor for the task.

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% with descriptions for both 'tool' and 'args'. The description adds value by explaining that args must match the invoked tool's schema, but this is largely redundant with the schema descriptions. No additional semantic details are provided beyond what the schema already conveys.

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?

The description clearly states the tool invokes any cuba-memorys tool by name, including those not pre-loaded, distinguishing it from the sibling tools which are specific functions. The verb 'invoke' and resource 'any tool' are specific and unambiguous.

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 advises discovering tools first with cuba_tools using detail='full', providing clear context for dynamic invocation. It implicitly differentiates from direct calls by noting tools may not be pre-loaded, though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool.

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