cuba_tools

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the on-demand loading behavior, profile sensitivity, and that this tool is for discovery only. It does not mention side effects, but for a read-only discovery tool, this is sufficient.

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, no redundancy. Front-loaded with main purpose, then provides details on usage and parameters. Every sentence earns its place.

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, the description explains what each detail level returns. It mentions the total tool count, the lean profile context, and the workflow (search then call with cuba_call). It is complete for a discovery tool.

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 description adds significant value: explains detail level trade-offs ('cheapest'), what each detail returns, and that 'full' gives the schema needed to call the tool. This goes beyond the schema.

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 finds cuba-memorys tools and loads their schemas on demand. It specifies the verb 'find' and resource 'tools + schemas', and distinguishes from siblings by explaining its role in lazy loading and discovery, contrasting with execution tools like cuba_call.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: when tools are not pre-loaded under the lean profile. It recommends searching by capability and gives examples. It does not explicitly list scenarios to avoid, but the context is clear enough.

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