cortex_ask

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

The description claims the tool is 'READ-ONLY' and 'It only reads — it never mutates state.' However, the annotation readOnlyHint is false, which directly contradicts this claim. This is a serious inconsistency that could mislead an agent into assuming safety when the annotation indicates otherwise. The description also fails to explain the openWorldHint implications.

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 relatively long but well-structured, front-loading the purpose and then detailing behavior, return type, mode, and a note. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise. The structure is logical and easy to scan.

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?

The description covers the return structure (ComplexQueryResult fields), mode semantics, safety guarantees, and a runtime prerequisite. It is fairly complete for a complex analytical tool, though it could mention error behavior when the runtime flag is off. The absence of an output schema makes the return description essential, and it is adequately 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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds context about mode sync/async and examples of target_ref values, but these are also present in the schema. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline 3 is 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: asking a read-only Cortex analyst an operational question and getting a cited answer. It provides concrete example questions and distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing 'READ-ONLY' and 'complex_query'. The verb-resource pairing is explicit and unambiguous.

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 gives clear usage context with example questions and explicitly mentions a prerequisite (CORTEX_TOOL_RUNTIME_ENABLED flag). It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the scope is well implied and the examples make it evident this is for analytical queries.

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