cuba_pizarra

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: TTL-bound, auto-expire, bulk-purge by another tool, and the three operations (write, read, clear). Does not explicitly state if write overwrites or appends, but given the scratchpad semantics, it's implied. Overall, informative for a tool with no annotations.

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 the model name and purpose. Every clause is informative and contributes to understanding. No redundant or filler content.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, parameter behavior, and lifecycle (expiry and purge). It also references a related sibling tool (cuba_zafra) for additional context, making it self-contained and complete for an agent.

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 tag filtering for read/clear, default TTL, and the action enum implicitly. The context 'Content to store (for write)' clarifies optional fields. This exceeds the schema's minimal descriptions.

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?

Clearly defines as a working memory buffer, references the Baddeley 1992 model, and distinguishes itself from episodic and semantic memory. Lists specific use cases (inter-step plan state, tentative observations, cross-tool-call reminders) and differentiates from sibling tools like cuba_cronica (episodic) and cuba_alma (semantic).

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?

Explicitly instructs to use for inter-step plan state during long-horizon tasks, tentative observations, and reminders. Mentions auto-expire by ttl_seconds and bulk-purge by cuba_zafra REM cycle, providing context on lifecycle. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' but the positive guidance is strong.

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