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 discloses the adaptive weighting behavior based on query length, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it doesn't cover other aspects like performance characteristics, error handling, or what 'memories' entail in this context. The description adds some value but leaves gaps for a tool with 5 parameters and no annotation coverage.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence adds crucial behavioral context without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is partially complete. It explains the retrieval mechanism and adaptive behavior, but lacks details on parameter meanings and doesn't leverage the output schema to clarify return values. For a tool with multiple parameters and sibling alternatives, more context would be beneficial.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'query' and implies usage based on query length, but doesn't explain the semantics of other parameters like 'domain', 'max_results', 'min_heat', or 'cluster_threshold'. With 5 parameters total and only 1 addressed, the description fails to add sufficient meaning beyond the bare schema.

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's purpose: 'Retrieve memories using the fractal hierarchy (L0/L1/L2 clusters).' It specifies the verb ('retrieve') and resource ('memories'), and mentions the hierarchical clustering mechanism. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'recall' or 'navigate_memory', which might offer similar retrieval 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 clear context for when to use this tool: 'Adaptive weighting based on query length — short queries search broad, long queries search specific.' This gives guidance on query length considerations. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the adaptive weighting hint helps infer usage scenarios.

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