Cortex

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers limited behavioral insight. It mentions analysis scope (structure, config, docs, entry points, CI/CD) and memory storage, but omits critical details like required permissions, whether it modifies the codebase, rate limits, or error handling. For a tool with 4 parameters and no annotation coverage, 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 directly state the tool's function and outcome. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids unnecessary elaboration, though it could be slightly more structured by separating analysis steps from storage.

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 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description is moderately complete. It covers the high-level purpose and analysis scope, but lacks parameter semantics and behavioral details. The output schema mitigates some gaps, but overall completeness is limited for a tool with this complexity.

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 but adds no parameter information. It doesn't explain what 'directory', 'domain', 'max_file_size_kb', or 'dry_run' mean or how they affect the bootstrapping process. This leaves all 4 parameters semantically undocumented.

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: 'Bootstrap memory from an existing codebase' specifies the verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'codebase_analyze' by emphasizing memory storage ('Stores key discoveries as memories'), but doesn't explicitly contrast with all similar tools like 'backfill_memories' or 'import_sessions'.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description mentions analyzing structure, config, docs, etc., but doesn't specify prerequisites, timing, or contrast with siblings like 'codebase_analyze' or 'backfill_memories'. This leaves the agent without explicit usage context.

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