Cortex

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions what types of gaps are identified but doesn't describe how the tool behaves: whether it's read-only or modifies data, what permissions are needed, whether it's computationally intensive, what the output format looks like, or any rate limits. For a gap detection tool with 5 parameters, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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 immediately states the tool's purpose and enumerates the specific gap types it identifies. Every word serves a purpose with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration. It's appropriately sized for a tool with this level of complexity.

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 that there's an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and 5 parameters with 0% schema coverage, the description provides adequate basic purpose but lacks crucial context. For a gap detection tool that likely returns structured analysis results, the description should ideally mention what kind of output to expect or how results are organized, even with an output schema available. It's minimally viable but has clear gaps in behavioral and parameter guidance.

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 has 0% description coverage, so all parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description mentions gap types (isolated entities, sparse domains, temporal drift, low-heat clusters) which partially maps to parameters like 'include_entity_gaps', 'include_domain_gaps', and 'include_temporal_gaps', but doesn't explain 'domain' filtering or 'stale_threshold_days'. It adds some semantic context but doesn't fully compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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: 'Identify knowledge gaps in the memory store' with specific types of gaps listed (isolated entities, sparse domains, temporal drift, low-heat topic clusters). It distinguishes from siblings like 'assess_coverage' or 'memory_stats' by focusing on gap detection rather than coverage assessment or statistical reporting. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'detect_domain' which might overlap in domain analysis.

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 siblings like 'assess_coverage', 'detect_domain', and 'memory_stats' that might serve related purposes, there's no indication of when this specific gap detection tool is preferred. The description only states what it does, not when it should be used.

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