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 mentions the tool creates a trigger that 'fires when a condition is met', which implies an action, but doesn't specify permissions needed, side effects, rate limits, or what happens upon firing. This is a significant gap for a creation 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose and key details. Every word earns its place, with no wasted text, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 has an output schema (which covers return values) and no annotations, the description is moderately complete. It explains the core functionality but lacks details on behavioral traits and full parameter semantics, making it adequate but with clear gaps for a creation tool.

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. It adds meaning by explaining that parameters relate to conditions like 'keyword, time, file, or domain', which helps interpret 'trigger_condition' and 'trigger_type'. However, it doesn't detail all 4 parameters (e.g., 'content', 'target_directory'), leaving gaps.

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 verb ('create') and resource ('prospective memory trigger'), defining it as a future-oriented reminder that fires based on conditions. It distinguishes from siblings like 'add_rule' or 'remember' by specifying its unique trigger-based nature, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them.

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 like 'add_rule' or 'remember'. The description implies usage for creating reminders with conditions but lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or references to sibling tools.

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