Cortex

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool 'connects to ai-architect MCP server over stdio' which provides some implementation context, but doesn't describe critical behavioral aspects: whether this is a long-running operation, what permissions or prerequisites are needed, what happens if the pipeline fails at intermediate stages, or what the output contains. For a complex pipeline tool with 6 parameters, 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 appropriately concise with two sentences that efficiently convey the core functionality and implementation method. The first sentence clearly states the pipeline stages, and the second provides technical context about the server connection. There's no wasted verbiage or unnecessary elaboration.

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 (6 parameters, end-to-end pipeline), no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description is moderately complete. It explains the high-level pipeline flow but lacks details about parameter usage, behavioral expectations, and differentiation from sibling tools. The existence of an output schema means return values are documented elsewhere, but the description should still address more operational aspects.

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 'codebase_path', 'task_path', 'context_path', 'github_repo', 'server', or 'max_findings' mean or how they should be used. The description doesn't mention any parameters at all, leaving them completely undocumented despite the schema's lack of descriptions.

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: 'Drive the ai-architect pipeline end-to-end' with a specific sequence of stages (discovery -> impact -> strategy -> PRD -> verification -> implementation -> PR). It provides a clear verb ('drive') and resource ('ai-architect pipeline'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'codebase_analyze' or 'navigate_memory' which might handle parts of this pipeline.

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 many sibling tools like 'codebase_analyze', 'explore_features', and 'get_project_story' that might handle components of the pipeline, there's no indication of when this comprehensive tool is preferred over more targeted ones. The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate.

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