cuba_remedio

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavior. It mentions cross-referencing but does not detail side effects like status changes, permissions, or irreversibility.

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, concise and front-loaded. However, the cross-referencing note is vague and could be clearer.

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 no annotations, the description covers the main action but lacks details on what 'mark as resolved' entails (e.g., state change) and what 'cross-references' produces.

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% with clear parameter descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific semantics beyond cross-referencing, which is a behavioral note.

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 action: marking an error as resolved with a solution. It also mentions cross-referencing similar unresolved errors, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like cuba_vigia or cuba_alarma.

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 implies usage for resolving errors and cross-referencing similar ones, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives among siblings.

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