Cortex

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that pages are stored in ~/.claude/methodology/wiki/ and indexed in PostgreSQL as protected pointer memories, adding useful context about persistence and recall mechanisms. However, it doesn't cover error handling, permissions, or what happens with existing content during replacement, leaving behavioral gaps.

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 sized with two sentences: the first states the core action, and the second adds storage and indexing context. It's front-loaded with the primary purpose, though the second sentence could be more directly related to usage.

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 and no annotations, the description provides basic purpose and storage context but lacks details on parameters, error cases, or output (though an output schema exists, reducing need for return value explanation). It's incomplete for a write tool with multiple parameters.

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 mentions 'path' and 'content' implicitly through 'wiki page' and 'append/replace', and 'mode' through 'author...or append/replace', but doesn't explain parameter meanings, defaults (e.g., mode='create'), or tag usage. This adds minimal value beyond what the schema names suggest.

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 ('author', 'append/replace') and resource ('wiki page') with specific types (adr/specs/files/notes). It distinguishes from siblings like wiki_read (read-only) and wiki_list (listing) by emphasizing write operations.

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 for creating or modifying wiki pages, with context about where pages live and how they're indexed. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like wiki_adr (specific ADR tool) or wiki_link, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites.

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