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 'trace' and 'returns' but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, side effects, or output format. The description does not contradict annotations, but it is insufficient for a tool with 5 parameters and no annotation coverage.

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 concise and front-loaded, using two sentences that efficiently convey the core functionality. There is no wasted language, though it could benefit from more detailed guidance without sacrificing brevity.

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's complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is moderately complete. It outlines the purpose and starting inputs but lacks usage guidelines, behavioral details, and parameter explanations. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but gaps remain in other areas.

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 for undocumented parameters. It only hints at 'entity_name' and 'memory_id' as starting points and 'relationship_types' through 'causal/dependency chains,' but does not explain 'max_depth' or 'direction.' This adds minimal value beyond the schema, failing to fully address the coverage gap.

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: 'Trace entity relationships through the knowledge graph' and 'Returns causal/dependency chains from a starting entity or memory.' It specifies the verb ('trace'), resource ('entity relationships'), and output type ('causal/dependency chains'), but does not explicitly differentiate it from similar sibling tools like 'get_methodology_graph' or 'navigate_memory'.

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. It mentions 'starting entity or memory' but does not specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, nor does it reference sibling tools for comparison, leaving the agent without contextual usage direction.

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