Cortex

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the performance characteristic '<10ms' which is useful context about expected latency. However, it doesn't describe what 'detected cognitive domains' means, whether this is a read-only operation (implied but not stated), what format the output takes, or any limitations like pagination or filtering constraints.

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 brief - just two phrases totaling 8 words. While concise, it's arguably too terse given the complexity implied by 'cognitive domains' and the lack of other documentation. The front-loaded purpose statement is clear, but the timing information might be better placed after more fundamental behavioral context.

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 should document return values), the description doesn't need to explain return format. However, for a tool dealing with 'cognitive domains' - a potentially complex concept in this system - the description feels minimal. With no annotations and siblings that suggest rich functionality (detect_domain, explore_features, etc.), more context about what this overview provides would be helpful.

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 tool has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter documentation gaps. The baseline for zero parameters with complete schema coverage is 4, as there are no parameters whose semantics need explanation beyond what the structured data provides.

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 'Overview of all detected cognitive domains' which indicates a listing/retrieval function, but it's somewhat vague about what 'cognitive domains' are in this context. It doesn't clearly distinguish this tool from other list/retrieval siblings like 'get_rules', 'wiki_list', or 'memory_stats'. The '<10ms' timing hint adds specificity but doesn't fully clarify the core purpose.

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 alternatives. With siblings like 'detect_domain', 'explore_features', 'navigate_memory', and 'get_rules' that might provide related functionality, the description offers no context about appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or when other tools might be more suitable.

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