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. It mentions the tool generates and returns something, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, side effects, or error handling. For a tool with 4 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral disclosure.

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 (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the action, the second specifies the output format. No wasted words, though it could benefit from more detail given the 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 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description is incomplete. It adequately states what the tool does but fails to explain inputs or behavioral context. The output schema mitigates the need to describe return values, but other gaps remain significant.

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 parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description doesn't explain any parameters (directory, domain, period, max_chapters), their meanings, or how they affect the narrative. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how to use the tool effectively.

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: 'Generate a period-based autobiographical narrative of project activity' and specifies it returns 'chronological chapters'. It uses specific verbs ('generate', 'returns') and identifies the resource ('project activity'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'narrative' or 'recall', which appear related.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites, context for selection, or exclusions. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'narrative', 'recall', 'get_causal_chain'), the lack of comparative guidance is a significant gap.

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