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 states that rating 'drives metamemory confidence which affects decay resistance and recall ranking', which adds some context about the tool's impact. However, it doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only or mutation operation, permission requirements, rate limits, or error handling. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 two sentences with zero waste: the first states the core action, and the second explains the impact. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every sentence earning its place by adding essential information without redundancy.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, but has an output schema), the description is partially complete. It covers the purpose and impact but lacks usage guidelines, behavioral details, and full parameter semantics. The presence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to explain return values, but other gaps remain, making it adequate but with clear omissions.

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 2 parameters with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains that the tool rates a memory as 'useful or not', which clarifies the purpose of the 'useful' boolean parameter. However, it doesn't add meaning for 'memory_id' (e.g., what constitutes a valid ID) or provide syntax/format details beyond the schema. The description adds some value but doesn't fully compensate for the coverage gap.

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 verb 'rate' and the resource 'memory', specifying the action of rating a memory as useful or not. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'remember', 'recall', or 'forget' by focusing on evaluation rather than creation, retrieval, or deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all possible siblings, such as 'validate_memory', which might have overlapping purposes.

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 'validate_memory' or other memory-related tools. It mentions the effect on 'metamemory confidence', which implies a context of memory management, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools.

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