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 explains the core functionality but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, side effects, or error handling. For a tool with 4 parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence and adds essential details in the second. Every sentence earns its place by defining the action, mechanism, input, and output without redundancy or fluff, making it highly efficient.

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 complexity (4 parameters, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and output but lacks details on parameter semantics and behavioral context. The output schema likely handles return values, but the description should do more to explain tool behavior and usage.

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 description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It only mentions 'memory_id' and implies 'max_depth' through 'co-accessed neighbors', but does not explain 'include_2d_map' or 'window_hours'. This adds minimal value beyond the schema, failing to fully clarify parameter meanings or usage.

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 specific action ('Navigate memory space'), mechanism ('using Successor Representation (co-access patterns)'), starting point ('Starting from a memory ID'), and output ('returns co-accessed neighbors and their SR distances'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'recall', 'explore_features', or 'drill_down' by focusing on co-access patterns rather than direct retrieval or analysis.

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 like 'recall' (for direct memory access) or 'explore_features' (for feature analysis). It mentions the starting point but does not specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to 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.