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 'diagnostics' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't specify whether this requires permissions, has side effects, or details about output format. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps unaddressed.

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, efficient phrase that lists key diagnostic aspects. It's appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool and front-loads the purpose. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly stating it's a read-only diagnostic tool.

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 has 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists, the description is minimally complete. However, as a diagnostic tool with no annotations, it should ideally clarify that it's read-only and what kind of diagnostic data it returns. The existence of an output schema reduces but doesn't eliminate the need for some behavioral context.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter gaps, and it appropriately doesn't mention parameters. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since no parameter information is needed.

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 the tool provides 'memory system diagnostics' and lists four diagnostic aspects (counts, heat distribution, entities, triggers), which gives a general purpose. However, it doesn't specify a clear verb action or distinguish this from sibling tools like 'checkpoint', 'validate_memory', or 'get_causal_chain' that might also provide diagnostic information about the memory system. The purpose is somewhat vague rather than specific.

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, timing, or compare it to siblings like 'checkpoint' or 'validate_memory' that might serve similar diagnostic purposes. Without any usage context, the agent must infer when this tool is appropriate.

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