cortex_prompt_lookup

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only hints at algorithm ('greedy') and output nature ('drafter'). It omits whether the call is read-only, what gets returned (draft tokens? counts?), latency or budget semantics, and how the required 'tokens' input should be sourced. 'Parameter-free' actively obscures the fact that parameters are required.

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 filler, which is structurally efficient. However, the compression comes at the cost of clarity, packing three unexplained terms into one line rather than using the space to inform.

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 3-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin: it doesn't define the two undocumented parameters, the output, or when to select it over neighbors. The agent lacks enough to invoke it correctly.

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 only 33% — max_ngram and draft_budget have no descriptions at all. The description's mention of 'trailing n-gram windows' loosely relates to max_ngram but never explains it, nor does it clarify draft_budget. It fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 names a specific function (greedy prompt-lookup speculative token drafting via trailing n-gram matching), so a domain-knowledgeable agent can grasp the intent. However, it is dense with unexplained jargon ('mojond engine') and doesn't differentiate itself from siblings like cortex_symdex_lookup. 'Parameter-free' is also confusing since the schema requires a 'tokens' argument.

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 when-to-use guidance is given: nothing says this should be called for drafting/speculation versus the sibling lookup or memory tools, and no prerequisites or invocation context are stated. The agent must infer usage entirely from the technical label.

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