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. It mentions launching in the browser and combining data types, but lacks details on behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, potential side effects, or how the visualization behaves (e.g., interactivity, persistence). This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely involves complex interactions.

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 and concise, consisting of two efficient sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and key features without unnecessary elaboration. Every sentence adds value by specifying the action and data integration.

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 complexity (involving 3D neural graphs and multiple data types), no annotations, and an output schema that exists but is unspecified, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavior, parameters, and usage context, making it adequate but with clear gaps for effective agent use.

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 input schema has one parameter ('domain') with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not mention parameters at all. Since there is only one parameter and schema coverage is low, the description fails to compensate by explaining what 'domain' means or how it affects the visualization. This results in a baseline score of 3, as the minimal parameter count mitigates some risk.

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 action ('Launch') and the target resource ('unified 3D neural graph in the browser'), specifying it combines methodology profiles, memories, and knowledge graph. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from potential siblings like 'get_methodology_graph' or 'navigate_memory', which might offer related functionality, keeping it from 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. With many sibling tools like 'get_methodology_graph', 'explore_features', or 'navigate_memory', there is no indication of specific contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions for using 'open_visualization'.

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