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 about performance ('<10s') and scope ('all session data'), but doesn't cover critical aspects like side effects (e.g., whether this is a destructive operation), permissions needed, or error handling, which are gaps for a tool that likely modifies data.

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 extremely concise with only two clauses, front-loading the core purpose and adding a performance note, with zero wasted words. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information efficiently.

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 (a rescan operation with 2 parameters) and the presence of an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values), the description is partially complete. It covers purpose and performance but lacks parameter explanations and behavioral details, making it adequate but with clear gaps for safe invocation.

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 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate but fails to do so. It doesn't explain the 'domain' parameter (e.g., whether it filters the rescan) or the 'force' parameter (e.g., what it overrides), leaving both parameters undocumented and their semantics unclear.

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 ('Full rescan of all session data') and the outcome ('to rebuild methodology profiles'), which is specific and actionable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'detect_domain' or 'query_methodology' by focusing on reconstruction rather than analysis or querying, though it doesn't explicitly name 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'sync_instructions' or 'backfill_memories', which might handle similar data tasks. It lacks context on prerequisites, triggers, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the purpose alone.

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