Cortex

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the navigation behavior (showing child clusters or memories) but lacks critical details: whether this is read-only or has side effects, permission requirements, rate limits, pagination, or error conditions. For a tool with 3 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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?

Two concise sentences front-load the core purpose and behavior with zero waste. Each sentence earns its place by explaining the navigation action and level-dependent outcomes efficiently.

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 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but misses parameter explanations, behavioral context, and usage guidelines. The output schema mitigates some gaps, but overall completeness is minimal viable.

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 mentions 'cluster_id' implicitly (via 'L2 cluster'/'L1 cluster') but doesn't explain its format or purpose. It omits 'domain' and 'min_heat' entirely, leaving 2 of 3 parameters undocumented. The description adds minimal value 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 verb ('Navigate into') and resource ('fractal memory cluster'), explaining that it shows child clusters or individual memories depending on the cluster level. It distinguishes from general navigation tools like 'navigate_memory' by specifying hierarchical exploration, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings.

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 implies usage for exploring hierarchical memory structures but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'navigate_memory', 'recall_hierarchical', or 'explore_features'. No prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative context are mentioned.

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