cuba_proyecto

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses memory isolation and session binding but does not explain behavioral traits for actions like rename or merge (e.g., whether they are destructive, require permissions). The description is partially transparent but leaves gaps for a tool with multiple actions.

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 cover the core concept efficiently. The inclusion of 'v0.8' is minor clutter. Front-loaded with essential information. No wasted words.

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 no output schema and 3 parameters, the description is reasonably complete. It explains the isolation mechanism, session binding, and legacy behavior. However, it lacks details on return values or effects of each action, which could be inferred but are not explicit.

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 about project scoping and session binding but does not elaborate on parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Adequate but not enhanced.

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: project scoping to isolate memories per project. It uses a specific verb ('isolate') and resource ('memories per project'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by focusing on project management concepts like session binding and legacy rows.

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 mentions that the active project is bound to the session via cuba_jornada start --project NAME, and notes legacy row visibility. However, it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to sibling tools like cuba_jornada or cuba_alma. The usage context is implied but not clearly delineated.

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