cuba_receta

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the learning mechanism (recording outcomes), the ranking by reliability, and that re-adding a name edits it while keeping its track record. This gives agents good insight into the tool's behavior.

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 somewhat verbose and metaphorical ('PROCEDURAL MEMORY', 'the other tools remember what is TRUE'). While it is front-loaded and clear, it could be more concise by reducing philosophical framing. Every sentence adds some value, but some could be trimmed.

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's complexity (9 parameters, 1 required, no output schema), the description provides enough context to use it correctly. It explains the core mechanics and the outcome reporting. However, it could be more explicit about parameter relationships and usage patterns beyond actions.

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%, but the description adds significant meaning beyond the schema. It explains the purpose of each action (e.g., 'outcome: record success/failure — this is what teaches it') and the concept of procedural memory. This helps an agent understand how to use the parameters correctly.

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 it is a procedural memory for how things are done, distinguishing it from sibling tools that remember facts. It specifies actions like bringing up dev services, running tests, deploying, migrating. However, the metaphorical language ('PROCEDURAL MEMORY', 'the other tools remember what is TRUE') slightly obscures the direct function.

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 guidance on reporting outcomes using the 'outcome' action for learning, and warns that failing recipes are harmful. It implies usage context but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or list alternative tools for specific scenarios.

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