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 adds useful context by stating the profile is 'pre-computed' and has a performance metric ('<50ms'), which helps the agent understand efficiency and data freshness. However, it lacks details on permissions, error handling, or response format, leaving gaps for a tool with behavioral implications.

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 highly concise and front-loaded, consisting of two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose, performance, and usage timing. Every word adds value without redundancy, making it easy for an agent to parse and apply quickly.

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 user cognitive profiles), no annotations, and an output schema (which mitigates the need to describe return values), the description is partially complete. It covers purpose and usage but lacks parameter explanations and behavioral details like authentication or limitations, leaving room for improvement in guiding the agent fully.

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 3 parameters (cwd, project, first_message) with 0% description coverage, meaning their purposes are undocumented. The tool description does not mention any parameters or explain their roles, failing to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation. This leaves the agent guessing about when and how to use these inputs.

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 'returns the user's cognitive profile for the current domain,' specifying both the verb ('returns') and resource ('cognitive profile'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_methodology_graph' or 'rebuild_profiles' by focusing on the user's pre-computed profile for context injection, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with these alternatives.

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 explicit guidance to 'use at session start for context injection,' indicating the optimal timing. However, it does not specify when not to use it or name alternative tools for similar purposes, such as 'get_project_story' or 'detect_domain,' which could be relevant for different context needs.

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