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 adds value by specifying the output format ('graph data for 3D visualization') and a performance characteristic ('<100ms'), which are useful beyond the input schema. However, it lacks details on permissions, error handling, or data scope, leaving gaps in behavioral understanding for a tool with no annotations.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, consisting of only two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and a performance metric. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or vague language, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 is an output schema (which should document return values), the description does not need to explain outputs. However, with no annotations, low parameter coverage, and complexity implied by 'graph data for 3D visualization', the description is somewhat incomplete. It covers purpose and performance but misses parameter details and broader context, making it minimally adequate but with clear gaps.

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 input schema has one parameter ('domain') with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not mention any parameters. This leaves the parameter's purpose, format, and effect completely undocumented. Since schema coverage is low (<50%), the description fails to compensate, resulting in inadequate parameter semantics.

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: 'Returns methodology map as graph data for 3D visualization.' It specifies the verb ('returns'), resource ('methodology map'), and output format ('graph data for 3D visualization'), which is specific and actionable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'query_methodology' or 'navigate_memory', which might have overlapping functions, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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 a performance hint ('<100ms'), but this does not help in choosing between this tool and siblings such as 'query_methodology' or 'open_visualization'. There are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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