AICortex start

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, closed-world behavior, yet the description still adds real operational facts: a 4,000-character output cap with truncation flagged as 'shortened', and the explicit empty-state behavior for a project with no notes. It stops short of describing permissions or cost/latency, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 most important instruction ('Call this first') is front-loaded, and the rest is dense but information-bearing. Some phrasing is compressed to the point of awkwardness ('a project with no notes yet says so'), and the trailing example costs length, but nothing is truly wasted.

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 an output schema present, the description need not detail return structure, yet it sketches enough of the briefing's sections that the agent knows what to expect, and both optional parameters and the no-argument default path are covered. Remaining gaps (error behavior, what 'skills matched' means) are minor.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented, but the description adds meaning the schema does not: what each argument changes about the returned payload (project yields notes/tasks/last session; task yields skills and integrations) and a worked example call. The added value is real though partly overlapping with existing parameter descriptions.

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 a concrete action (return a briefing) and enumerates the content by mode: profile/working preferences, plus project notes, open tasks and last session for `project`, and matching skills and integrations for `task`. It explicitly contrasts itself with bootstrap, memory_search and task_list, so an agent can place it among siblings without opening schemas.

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?

Gives an unambiguous trigger ('Call this first in every conversation'), explains the no-argument case, and routes later needs elsewhere ('use memory_search for a fact and task_list for the task board'). It even resolves the overlap with the bootstrap sibling by naming it as the equivalent for older setups.

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