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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions auto-incrementing ADR numbers, which is a useful behavioral trait, but lacks details on permissions, side effects (e.g., whether this creates persistent records), error handling, or response format. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 action ('Create a numbered ADR') and adds key behavior ('Auto-increments the ADR number'). There is no wasted text, and it's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, 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 that there is an output schema (which handles return values) but no annotations and low schema coverage, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic action and a key trait (auto-incrementing), but for a creation tool with 6 parameters, it should provide more context on inputs, behavioral constraints, or usage scenarios to be fully adequate.

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 schema provides no parameter details. The description mentions 'structured fields' but doesn't explain what those fields are (e.g., title, context, decision) or their purposes. It adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the coverage gap, especially with 6 parameters (4 required).

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 creates a numbered ADR from structured fields with auto-incrementing numbers. It specifies the verb ('Create'), resource ('ADR'), and key behavior ('Auto-increments the ADR number'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like wiki_write or wiki_list, which prevents 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like wiki_write (which might handle general wiki content) or wiki_list (which might list ADRs), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied only through the action described, with no explicit context for selection.

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