hipocampo_budget

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and does it well: it explains the HOT/WARM/COLD states, that COLD content is moved to memoria_historica and removed from main search, and that protected categories are exempt. It does not mention reversibility or authorization requirements, but the main side effects are clearly stated.

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 compact, well-organized, and front-loaded. The purpose, tier definitions, exemptions, and parameter behavior are each given clear sections without redundant prose. Every sentence contributes meaningful information.

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?

The description covers the core behavior, tier mechanics, exemptions, and the only parameter thoroughly. Since an output schema exists, return-value documentation is not required. It could optionally explain budget thresholds or what triggers automatic tiering, but the provided context is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 0% and the schema only provides type/default for dry_run. The description fully compensates by explaining that True is the default and means 'analysis only', while False executes the tiering. This is complete, unambiguous parameter semantics.

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 a specific action ('Gestiona el presupuesto de memoria') and defines the underlying tiering mechanism with HOT/WARM/COLD categories. It distinguishes the tool's domain from general maintenance or search tools, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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 dry_run parameter is explained with actionable guidance: use True for analysis only and False to execute tiering. It also specifies that protected entries are exempt, which helps the agent decide what will be affected. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over sibling tools like hipocampo_maintenance or compress_hipocampo.

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