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 that the tool 'marks stale memories,' implying a mutation, but doesn't specify if this is reversible, what permissions are needed, or how it handles errors. It mentions a 'dry_run' parameter but doesn't explain its effect in the description.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and outcome. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise 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 (6 parameters, mutation implied, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameter usage, behavioral traits, and context, but the output schema may cover return values, preventing a lower score.

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. It only implies parameters related to 'memories' and 'filesystem state' without detailing any of the 6 parameters. No meaning is added beyond the schema, leaving parameters like 'staleness_threshold' and 'domain' unexplained.

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 specific action ('validate memories against current filesystem state') and the outcome ('marks stale memories whose referenced files no longer exist'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'memory_stats' or 'backfill_memories' by focusing on validation against filesystem state rather than statistics or creation.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, ideal scenarios, or exclusions, nor does it reference sibling tools for comparison. Usage is implied only through the action described.

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