Cortex

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the bidirectional nature of the link, that it updates both files' Related sections, and idempotency. However, it doesn't cover permissions, error conditions, or what the output contains (though an output schema exists).

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 three short sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first states the action, the second specifies the effect, and the third provides an important behavioral trait (idempotency).

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 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description is incomplete—it doesn't explain parameters. However, an output schema exists, so return values needn't be described. The description covers the tool's core behavior adequately but leaves parameter semantics unaddressed.

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 descriptions. The description doesn't explain what 'from_path', 'to_path', or 'relation' mean, their formats, or valid values. It implies parameters exist but adds no semantic details beyond the schema's structure.

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 ('Add a bidirectional link'), the resource ('between two wiki pages'), and the effect ('Updates the Related section of both files'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like wiki_read or wiki_write by focusing on linking rather than reading/writing content.

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 like wiki_write (which might handle content updates) or other wiki tools. It mentions idempotency but doesn't specify scenarios where this is preferable or when other tools should be used instead.

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