cuba_expediente

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

The description reveals that the tool returns a warning if a similar approach failed before (via 'proposed_action'), but with no annotations provided, it fails to disclose other behavioral traits such as read-only status, required permissions, or potential side effects. The behavioral transparency is minimal.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value—the first states what the tool does, the second gives a key usage hint. Excellent conciseness.

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 is brief and lacks details about return values, result ordering, pagination, or error handling. While the tool has a moderate number of parameters (4), the lack of output schema and limited context means the description is minimally complete for an effective search tool.

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?

The input schema already provides full descriptions for all 4 parameters (100% coverage). The description adds a brief usage note about 'proposed_action,' but it does not provide additional meaning beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Search past errors/solutions.' It uses a specific verb and resource, making it distinct from vague descriptions. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like cuba_remedio (which might also deal with errors/solutions), but the purpose is still clear.

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 a specific usage tip for the 'proposed_action' parameter, but it lacks any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative tools (e.g., cuba_remedio or cuba_cronica). No mention of context or exclusions.

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