hicortex_lessons

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool returns 'actionable Learnings' and its aliasing, but it does not disclose what the output format is, whether it is read-only or has side effects, any authentication requirements, or how the 'days' and 'project' parameters affect behavior. As a read-like operation, it is likely safe, but the lack of detail leaves significant 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 one sentence and front-loads the core purpose. The phrase 'call it before retrying an approach that failed before' is actionable and earns its place. It could be slightly more structured with a separate note on aliasing, but overall it is concise and efficient.

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 simplicity (2 parameters, no required params, 100% schema coverage), the description is adequate for basic selection, but it does not explain the return value or how results are ordered or filtered, which might be important for an agent deciding between this and 'hicortex_recent' or 'hicortex_search'. The alias note is useful but does not fully compensate for missing behavioral context.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, meaning both parameters ('days' and 'project') are described in the schema. The description does not add further semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies. It could have provided examples of valid values or interaction between parameters, but it does not.

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 and resource ('Get actionable Learnings') and provides a use case ('before retrying an approach that failed before'). However, it does not distinguish it from its sibling 'hicortex_learnings' except by noting it is an alias, which is helpful but not sufficient to clarify when to use this tool versus the alias or other siblings like 'hicortex_recent' or 'hicortex_search'.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('before retrying an approach that failed before'), which is a clear usage context. It also mentions it is an alias for 'hicortex_learnings', implicitly guiding the agent to use either interchangeably, but it does not provide explicit conditions for choosing alternatives like 'hicortex_search' or 'hicortex_get'.

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