cuba_cronica

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and mentions key behaviors: auto-creating entities, dedup gate for near-duplicates, and supporting episodic memory actions. It could add more details on side effects or error handling but is above average.

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 a single paragraph of three sentences, concise and front-loaded. However, it is dense and could benefit from breaking into bullet points for clarity.

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 9 parameters, multiple actions, no output schema, no annotations, the description covers core functionalities but lacks details on return values, error conditions, and action-specific constraints. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context for action values (e.g., 'episode_add stores a temporal event') but does not significantly enhance parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 attaches facts/lessons/decisions to entities and manages episodic memories with actions like episode_add, episode_list, and timeline. It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying unique functionalities such as auto-creating entities and dedup gates.

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 attaching observations and managing memories but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives among the 27 sibling tools. No 'when-to-use' or 'when-not-to-use' advice is provided.

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