hipocampo_maintenance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses concrete side effects for each step: auto-repair if needed, merges duplicates, compresses old memories, purges access logs >30d, and adjusts thresholds. It also states the return value is a consolidated report. It doesn't mention whether the overall operation is reversible or if confirmation is required, but the enumerated behaviors provide solid transparency for a maintenance tool.

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 well-organized: a header sentence, a numbered list of steps, a cautionary note, and a return statement. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundancy or extraneous detail. The structure makes it easy to scan and parse.

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?

For a zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the full behavior, including sub-steps, exclusions, and return value. It clearly separates this tool from two destructive sibling operations. There are no missing prerequisites, parameters, or critical caveats needed for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

The input schema has zero properties and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. Per the zero-parameter baseline, the description need not add parameter semantics. The description focuses on behavior, which is appropriate here.

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 states 'Ejecuta el ciclo completo de mantenimiento' and enumerates five concrete steps (health check, dedup, checkpoint, purge, tune), each mapping to specific behaviors. It clearly distinguishes itself as the composite maintenance operation, and the note about budget/decay reinforces what the tool is not. This is a specific verb+resource with strong sibling differentiation.

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 explicitly lists the maintenance steps and then provides a cautionary note: 'hipocampo_budget y decay_hipocampo se ejecutan manualmente o via cron separado (son destructivos y requieren dry_run previo).' This tells the agent when to use this tool (full maintenance cycle) and when not to use it for those destructive operations, naming the alternatives directly. It gives clear context and exclusions.

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