cuba_jornada

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the optional 'project' arg triggers an upsert into brain_projects and scopes subsequent operations, which is helpful. However, it does not describe side effects of 'start' or 'end' actions (e.g., whether sessions are persisted, overwritten, or conflict), leaving gaps.

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 two sentences long, with the first clearly stating the tool's purpose and the second explaining the key parameter. It is concise and front-loaded. However, it could be improved by structuring the information (e.g., bullet points for actions) to aid scanning.

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 has 6 parameters (1 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description should cover return values, behavior for each action, and edge cases (e.g., what happens if 'end' is called without 'start'). It only elaborates on the 'project' parameter, leaving many scenarios undocumented, making it incomplete for reliable invocation.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that the 'project' parameter binds the session to a named project (upserts in brain_projects) and that omitting it keeps the session global. It also contextualizes the 'action' enum by implying start/end/list/current usage, though explicit mapping to each action's behavior is missing.

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 tracks working sessions with goals and outcomes, using a specific verb ('track') and resource ('sessions'). It also mentions the optional project argument for binding. However, it does not distinguish its purpose from sibling tools like cuba_vigia or cuba_proyecto, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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 lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions actions (start, end, list, current) but does not specify prerequisites, fallback strategies, or scenarios where other tools would be preferred (e.g., if only logging notes). An agent would need to infer usage from context.

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