Memoria de averias

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

Beyond annotations (read-only, idempotent, open world), the description adds concrete behavioral details: raw codes only, no translation because the catalog lacks meanings, and a 12h container-cache sharing behavior. These disclosures help the agent set expectations without contradicting the annotations.

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?

Two dense sentences lead with the core function, then add output constraints and a caching caveat. Every clause earns its place and there is no filler.

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?

A parameterless read tool with an output schema and rich annotations is fully covered by this description: it explains grouping, delta behavior, field limitations, lack of translation, and cache lifetime. Nothing essential is missing for correct selection and invocation.

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 schema has zero properties, so there is no parameter vocabulary to document. The description adds no parameter details, but with 0 params the baseline is 4 and no compensation is required.

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?

States exactly what the tool returns: fault memory codes grouped by control unit plus codes that appeared or disappeared since the last reading. It also states output limitations (only control unit and code, no status/date/description/translation), which clearly distinguishes it from related diagnostic tools.

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 makes the tool's limited scope clear by warning that codes are not described or translated, so an agent can infer this is not the right tool when human-readable fault definitions are needed. However, it never explicitly names alternatives or says when-not-to-use, leaving the routing decision mostly implicit.

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