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. While 'retrieve' implies a read operation, it doesn't specify whether this is a simple lookup or a complex search, what 'production enrichments' entail, or any performance characteristics. The description mentions technical implementation details ('intent-adaptive PG recall') but doesn't translate these to observable behaviors that would help an agent understand what to expect from the tool's operation.

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 (one sentence), which could be efficient if it were informative. However, it wastes its limited space on implementation details ('intent-adaptive PG recall with production enrichments') rather than practical information about what the tool does and when to use it. While technically brief, it's not effectively structured to help an agent understand the tool's purpose and usage.

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 has 6 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description is inadequate for helping an agent understand how to use this tool effectively. However, the presence of an output schema somewhat mitigates the need to describe return values in the description. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of parameter documentation and provides minimal practical guidance for a tool with multiple parameters and complex sibling relationships.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for all 6 parameters, the description provides no information about what any parameter means or how to use them. The description doesn't mention any parameters at all, leaving the agent with parameter names (query, domain, directory, max_results, min_heat, agent_topic) but no semantic understanding of what they control or how they affect the recall operation.

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 states the tool retrieves memories, which is a clear verb+resource combination ('retrieve memories'). However, it uses technical jargon like 'intent-adaptive PG recall with production enrichments' without explaining what this means in practical terms. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'recall_hierarchical', 'remember', or 'navigate_memory' that likely have similar memory-related functions.

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 multiple sibling tools dealing with memories (recall_hierarchical, remember, navigate_memory, etc.), there's no indication of what makes this specific recall method appropriate or when to choose it over other options. The technical terminology doesn't translate to practical usage scenarios.

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