hipocampo_tune

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. It openly states that the tool is destructive ('modifica los thresholds y pesos de forma irreversible') and idempotent ('ejecutarlo múltiples veces converge al mismo resultado'), and advises caution. This is substantial transparency beyond the bare minimum.

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 concise and well-structured. It front-loads the main purpose, then adds safety warnings, alternative tools, and specific usage conditions. Each sentence contributes value, with no redundant information. The length is appropriate given the destructive nature of the tool.

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 all essential aspects: what the tool does, its irreversible side effects, when to use it, when not to use it, alternatives, and what it returns. Given the empty input schema and presence of an output schema, this is complete. It effectively compensates for missing annotations by providing all necessary behavioral context.

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 tool has zero input parameters, so the baseline score is 4. The description does not need to document parameter semantics, as there are none. It briefly mentions the internal 'thresholds y pesos' being tuned, which adds context but is not required for parameter understanding.

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 function: 'Ajusta automáticamente los thresholds y pesos del SSC basado en las métricas de rendimiento acumuladas.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like hipocampo_stats (read-only) and hipocampo_maintenance (full cycle). This makes the purpose unambiguous and well-differentiated.

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 and when not to use: 'Recomendado ejecutar solo después de acumular suficientes métricas (al menos 100 consultas registradas)' and 'No usar si el sistema funciona correctamente sin degradación.' It also names alternatives: hipocampo_stats for read-only viewing and hipocampo_maintenance for the full maintenance cycle, giving 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.