stats

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

No annotations exist, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only lists output dimensions (terms, nodes, edges) but does not state whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, requires permissions, or has performance implications. The agent lacks critical behavioral context.

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 extremely concise (one short phrase) but lacks a clear sentence structure. It is not overly verbose, but the minimalism sacrifices completeness and clarity. It could be improved with a verb and more context without losing conciseness.

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 the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description minimally explains the output content (memory dimensions). However, it does not explain the meaning of 'terms, nodes, edges' or how the agent should interpret the results. It is adequate but incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's value.

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 parameters, so the baseline is 4 per guidelines. The description does not add parameter semantics because there are none, but it does not detract. No additional information is needed 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 'Dimensiones de la memoria: terminos, nodos, aristas' indicates the tool provides memory dimensions (terms, nodes, edges) but lacks a verb or action verb (e.g., 'get', 'retrieve'). The purpose is inferred but not clearly stated, and there is no differentiation from sibling tools like 'estado' or 'consultar'.

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?

No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites, exclusions, or context where other tools would be preferred.

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