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 listing and optional filtering, but fails to disclose critical traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, how results are paginated or sorted, or what the output format is. The description is too minimal to adequately inform an agent about behavioral aspects beyond basic functionality.

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 two short sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and parameter usage without any wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and efficiently includes necessary details, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 low complexity (1 optional parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and incomplete behavioral details, it leaves gaps in understanding operational constraints. The output schema likely covers return values, but the description should still address basic behavior like safety or permissions to be more complete.

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?

The description adds meaningful context for the single parameter 'kind' by specifying it as an optional filter with examples (adr, specs, files, notes), which goes beyond the schema's minimal coverage (0%). Since there's only one parameter and the schema provides no descriptions, the description effectively compensates by clarifying the parameter's purpose and possible values, making it highly useful for agent selection.

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 verb 'list' and resource 'authored wiki pages', making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes itself from other wiki tools like wiki_read, wiki_write, wiki_adr, etc., by focusing on listing rather than reading, writing, or linking. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from non-wiki list tools like list_domains, which slightly reduces clarity.

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 implies usage by mentioning optional filtering by kind (e.g., adr, specs, files, notes), which suggests when to use it for filtered vs. unfiltered lists. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like wiki_read for individual pages or other list tools, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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