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 'active' rules and optional filtering, but fails to cover critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'active' means in this context. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation support.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality and optional features without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and appropriately sized for the tool's 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 the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and hints at parameters, but lacks details on usage guidelines, behavioral traits, and full parameter semantics. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but overall completeness is limited.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It mentions optional filtering by 'scope or rule type', which aligns with two of the three parameters ('scope' and 'rule_type'), and implies a focus on 'active' rules, hinting at the 'include_inactive' parameter. However, it doesn't fully detail all parameters or their semantics, such as default behaviors or what 'scope' entails, so it's not a perfect score.

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 ('List') and resource ('active neuro-symbolic rules in the memory store'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_domains' or 'get_causal_chain', which might also involve listing operations in the same domain, 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, such as 'list_domains' or 'get_causal_chain', which are sibling tools. It mentions optional filtering but doesn't specify contexts or prerequisites for usage, leaving the agent with minimal direction.

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