cuba_decreto

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'record and query' without specifying side effects (e.g., does recording overwrite or append?), persistence, permissions, or any constraints. The agent is left guessing about the tool's effect on system state.

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, efficient sentence that states the purpose without waste. It is front-loaded and easy to parse. However, given 7 parameters and 3 actions, one sentence may under-communicate, but it is still appropriately concise for a minimal definition.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description fails to explain what each action returns, how errors are handled, or how parameters interact. For a tool with multiple actions and several parameters, this lack of context leaves the agent underinformed.

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%—all seven parameters have inline descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema fills the semantics gap adequately.

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 records and queries architecture/design decisions. It identifies the specific resource type and includes both actions. However, given the 27 sibling tools with similar naming patterns (cuba_*), it does not differentiate itself. A score of 4 reflects clear purpose but no sibling distinction.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings or when to choose among its three actions (record, query, list). It does not mention any prerequisites or exclusions. With many similar tools, the lack of usage context is a significant gap.

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