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 states the tool generates a narrative from stored memories but doesn't explain what 'stored memories' are, how the generation works, whether it's deterministic or creative, what permissions are needed, or any rate limits. For a generation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 sentence that front-loads the core purpose. There's no wasted wording, and it directly communicates the tool's function without unnecessary elaboration.

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 an output schema (which likely describes the generated narrative), the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, with 3 parameters at 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description is incomplete—it doesn't fully compensate for the lack of structured data, leaving key behavioral and parameter details unclear.

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 the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description mentions 'directory or domain', which maps to two of the three parameters (directory, domain), but doesn't explain what these mean or how they're used. It omits the 'brief' parameter entirely. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 project narrative/story from stored memories for a directory or domain.' It specifies the verb ('generate'), resource ('project narrative/story'), and source ('stored memories'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_project_story' or 'recall', which appear related to story/narrative retrieval.

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 considerations, or compare it to siblings like 'get_project_story' or 'recall'. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.

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