cortex_shield_forecast

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the three evaluation dimensions, which is meaningful behavioral context. But it says nothing about what the evaluation produces (a verdict? a block? a score?), whether the call is side-effect-free, or what happens on a hazardous result.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the purpose and the checked dimensions arrive immediately. It is well-sized for a two-parameter tool, though it is arguably under-developed rather than padded.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description is the sole source of behavioral information, and it leaves the return contract and the consequence of a failing forecast unstated. For a safety-gating tool this is a noticeable gap, though the core purpose is covered.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both 'goal' (active task objective) and 'action' (proposed command). The description adds no format or syntax detail beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Evaluate') on a specific resource ('candidate shell command or action') and enumerates the three checks (goal alignment, cyclic loops, destructive hazards), so an agent can tell it apart from the memory/snapshot/context siblings. It stops short of naming any sibling for contrast, which keeps it from a 5.

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 phrase 'before execution' implies the correct moment to call it (pre-flight on a proposed action), which is genuine usage context. However there is no explicit when-not guidance and no named alternative, so the guidance remains implied rather than stated.

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