watch_hipocampo

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the trigger events, HTTP method (POST), payload fields (event, id, content, metadatos), and return value (watch ID). It lacks details on webhook lifecycle or failure handling, but core behavior is transparent.

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: a single purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. No unnecessary filler; every sentence adds value.

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 simple 2-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, inputs, and return value. It could mention how to remove the watch, but that is handled by sibling tools like unwatch_hipocampo, so it is sufficiently complete.

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%, but the description's Args section fully explains both parameters: pattern as the text to search in content/metadata, and webhook_url as the URL receiving a POST with specific fields. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema types.

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 registers a webhook that triggers on create/modify/delete of a memory matching a pattern. This specific verb+resource (register webhook) distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_hipocampo or unwatch_hipocampo.

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 clear context: it is for receiving notifications when memories matching a pattern change. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is concrete enough that an agent can infer when to use it.

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