cuba_sync

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It reveals key behaviors: export writes one JSON file per entity, import uses INSERT ON CONFLICT DO NOTHING (idempotent), diff compares disk vs DB, and status lists manifests. It also clarifies that embeddings are omitted by default. This is fairly transparent, though it could mention potential side effects like directory creation or permission requirements.

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 a single dense paragraph that efficiently conveys the core information (purpose, actions, defaults). It is front-loaded with the main purpose. However, it could be improved with bullet points or separate sentences for each action to enhance scanability. Every sentence adds value, but the structure could be cleaner.

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 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: all four actions, default directory, conflict handling for import, and embedding behavior. It lacks details on return values or error handling, but the actions (diff, status) imply comparisons and listings. The description is sufficient for typical usage scenarios.

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 the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: it explains the default directory derivation, the idempotent nature of import, and that embeddings are excluded by default. This enhances understanding of the 'dir', 'action', 'conflict', and 'with_embeddings' parameters.

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: 'Git-friendly export/import of the knowledge graph (v0.8).' It enumerates four distinct actions (export, import, diff, status) with brief explanations, making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like cuba_vigia or cuba_proyecto which have different purposes.

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 fails to provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It explains what each action does but does not specify contexts or trade-offs (e.g., when to use 'import' with 'merge' vs 'overwrite', or when 'diff' is appropriate). No explicit 'when-to-use' or 'when-not-to-use' statements are present.

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