Cortex

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'memory maintenance' and specific operations, but doesn't explain what these operations entail (e.g., are they destructive, do they require special permissions, what are the side effects or performance impacts?). This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond its basic purpose.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Run memory maintenance') and lists specific operations without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's purpose, making it appropriately concise and well-structured.

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 complexity (a maintenance tool with 5 parameters and no annotations) and the presence of an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values), the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and hints at parameter semantics but lacks usage guidelines and detailed behavioral context, leaving room for improvement in guiding an agent effectively.

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 input schema has 5 parameters with 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by implying the parameters' roles: 'heat decay' likely maps to 'decay', 'compression' to 'compress', and 'CLS consolidation cycles' to 'cls'. It doesn't mention 'memify' or 'deep', but the context suggests these are additional maintenance options. Since there are 0 required parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description adds meaningful context for most parameters beyond the 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 ('Run memory maintenance') and specifies three specific operations (heat decay, compression, CLS consolidation cycles), which gives a good sense of what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like 'memory_stats', 'rebuild_profiles', or 'validate_memory' that might also relate to memory management, leaving some ambiguity about its unique role.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools related to memory operations (e.g., 'memory_stats', 'rebuild_profiles', 'validate_memory'), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions for using 'consolidate', making it unclear when an agent should select it over other options.

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