memoria_archivar

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether archiving is destructive, reversible, or requires specific permissions. It uses the verb 'Archiva' without clarifying the underlying action (e.g., move, copy, delete).

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 a single sentence, which is concise but could benefit from additional structure, such as separating purpose from usage notes. It is clear but minimal.

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's simplicity (2 parameters, no schema complexity), the description is partially complete. However, lacking annotations and explicit behavioral details, it falls short of fully informing an agent. The presence of an output schema (not detailed) does not compensate for the missing transparency.

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 description adds meaning beyond the input schema by linking 'antiguas' (old) to the 'dias' parameter and 'resueltas' (resolved) to the action. Both parameters are fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), but the description provides context that clarifies how they relate to the tool's purpose.

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 action ('Archiva'), the resource ('entradas resueltas antiguas'), and the destination ('en la bóveda'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'memoria_buscar' or 'memoria_escribir' by focusing on archiving old resolved entries.

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 implies usage for archiving old resolved entries, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No when-not or alternative tool mentions are provided.

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