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 exploring interpretability features but doesn't describe what the exploration entails - whether it's read-only, generates visualizations, performs analysis, has side effects, or requires specific permissions. The description is too vague about the tool's actual behavior and operational characteristics.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences. The first sentence lists the features to explore, and the second provides research context. There's no unnecessary verbosity, though the content itself is insufficiently informative about the tool's actual function and usage.

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 reduces the need to describe return values) but zero schema description coverage and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It mentions what features can be explored but doesn't explain how to use the tool, what the parameters mean, or how this differs from sibling visualization/analysis tools. For a 3-parameter tool with complex interpretability features, more guidance is needed.

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 all 3 parameters (mode, domain, compare_domain) are completely undocumented in the schema. The description provides no information about what these parameters mean, what values they accept, or how they affect the exploration. This leaves critical usage information missing that the description should compensate for but doesn't.

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 states 'Explore interpretability features' but doesn't specify what action 'explore' entails or what resource it operates on. It lists feature types (dictionary features, attribution graphs, etc.) but doesn't clarify whether this tool displays, analyzes, compares, or generates these features. The mention of being 'inspired by Anthropic's mechanistic interpretability research' adds context but doesn't define the tool's specific function.

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 about when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools. With 40+ sibling tools including 'open_visualization', 'get_methodology_graph', 'detect_domain', and others that might overlap with interpretability features, the description offers no differentiation or context for when this specific exploration tool is appropriate.

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