hicortex_index

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 discloses what the tool returns (topics and projects grouped by domain) but doesn't explicitly state that it's a read-only, side-effect-free operation, nor does it describe limits, pagination, or the exact return structure. For a zero-parameter listing tool, this is adequate but not rich — an agent can't be certain there are no side effects or cost implications.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler. The first sentence front-loads the verb and resource ('Get the knowledge domain index'), and the second delivers actionable usage guidance. Every word earns its place, and the structure is well-ordered with the core purpose first.

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?

For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema and no nested objects, the description covers the essentials: what it does, what it returns conceptually, and when to call it. The only gap is the absence of a precise return-format description, but given the tool's simplicity and the lack of an output schema to lean on, this is a minor omission rather than a blocking one.

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?

With zero parameters, the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The schema is empty (100% coverage trivially), so there is no parameter meaning to add. The description's mention of what the index shows ('grouped by domain') is the closest thing to semantic context, and it doesn't conflict with or duplicate any schema content.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('knowledge domain index'), and explains what it shows ('topics and projects stored in memory, grouped by domain'). It differentiates itself from the sibling search tool by framing itself as the index/browse operation rather than a retrieval or mutation tool, which is clear enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call before a broad search to see which knowledge domains exist, or when unsure what the memory covers.' This is clear context, though it doesn't name alternatives explicitly (e.g., hicortex_search) or state when NOT to use it. It implies the relationship to search but doesn't spell out exclusions.

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