Cortex

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that rules 'hard-filter or soft-rerank recall results', which gives some insight into behavior, but lacks details on permissions, side effects, error handling, or response format, leaving significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 front-loaded and concise with two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and effect. There's no unnecessary information, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly listing key parameters.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, mutation operation) and lack of annotations, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and effect, but with 0% schema coverage and an output schema present, it should provide more parameter context and behavioral details to be fully helpful.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'conditions' and hints at 'rule_type' (hard-filter vs. soft-rerank), but doesn't explain the meaning or usage of the 6 parameters (e.g., 'scope', 'priority'), failing to add sufficient value beyond the bare schema.

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 action ('Add') and resource ('neuro-symbolic rule to the memory store'), with a specific purpose of filtering or reranking recall results. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_rules' or 'validate_memory', which would require 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to add rules versus using other tools like 'recall' or 'validate_memory'. The description mentions the tool's effect but not the context for its application.

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