cuba_centinela

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

The description explains the core behavior (triggers fire on conditions) but omits details on trigger lifecycle, persistence, side effects, and the effect of parameters like max_fires and expires_at. With no annotations, more transparency is needed.

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?

Very concise at two sentences; front-loaded with the key concept. The quote example adds clarity but could be integrated more smoothly. Still, it earns its place and avoids redundancy.

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 tool has multiple actions (create, list, delete, check) but the description only implies creation. No mention of managing triggers (listing, deleting) or what the output is after creation. Given the complexity and no output schema, this is a significant gap.

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%, but the description adds value by contextualizing parameters (e.g., 'message' as reminder, 'condition_type' as events). The prospective memory framing ties parameters together meaningfully, exceeding baseline 3.

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's purpose: setting triggers for prospective memory, with specific event types (entity access, session start, error match). The example quote reinforces the intent. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on trigger-based reminders tied to specific conditions.

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 implies usage for setting reminders conditioned on events, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like alarms or watches. No exclusions or guidance on when not to use it are provided.

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