cortex-call

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the entire burden of behavioral disclosure and it is thin: it does not say whether the forwarded call actually executes and can therefore mutate or destroy data, what happens when validation fails, whether authorization is inherited from the session, or whether calls are rate limited or logged. 'Validate' hints at a rejection path but the failure behavior is unexplained.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, which is structurally clean. But the brevity here reflects under-specification rather than disciplined concision, so it earns only a middling score.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but for a multi-parameter dispatch tool with no annotations the description omits essentials: discovery of valid tool_name values, the origin of session_id, and the side-effect profile of executing the forwarded call. An agent would have to guess at several things before invoking it safely.

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?

All three parameters have 0% schema description coverage and the description adds no meaning: it never explains what session_id is or where to obtain it (presumably from cortex-start), what set of values tool_name accepts or how to discover them, or that tool_arguments is forwarded verbatim to the named tool. For an open-ended nested object with additionalProperties, that gap is costly.

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 verb phrase 'Validate and forward' plus the object 'one call to an allowed tool on Cortex MCP' tells the agent this is a dispatch/proxy operation rather than a direct tool, which is genuinely useful. However, 'allowed tool' is never defined and the mechanism (does it execute the call, or just check and relay it?) remains ambiguous, so an agent cannot fully predict the effect from the description alone.

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?

There is no statement of when this tool should be used instead of calling the target tool directly, no prerequisite that a session must exist first, and no exclusion conditions. The phrase 'one call' weakly implies single-invocation semantics, but no actual when/when-not guidance is offered.

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