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 mentions performance ('<200ms'), which is useful, but fails to cover critical aspects like whether this is a read or write operation, if it requires specific permissions, what the update entails, or potential side effects. For a tool with 8 parameters and likely mutation, this is inadequate.

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 two short phrases that are front-loaded and waste no words. Every element ('incremental profile update', 'after a session ends', '<200ms') earns its place by conveying purpose and a performance hint 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 (8 parameters, likely a mutation tool), no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. While an output schema exists (which mitigates the need to explain return values), the description lacks essential details on behavior, parameter meanings, and usage context, making it insufficient for effective tool 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 schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 8 parameters are documented in the schema. The description does not add any meaning or context for parameters like 'session_id', 'tools_used', or 'duration', leaving them entirely unexplained. This fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 ('incremental profile update') and the triggering event ('after a session ends'), which is specific and informative. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'checkpoint', 'backfill_memories', or 'rebuild_profiles', which might also involve profile updates, so it lacks sibling differentiation for a perfect score.

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 implies usage context ('after a session ends') but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other profile-related tools in the sibling list. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or comparisons mentioned, leaving the agent with minimal direction.

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