cortex_estimate_optimization

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is free, returns a specific decision block with listed components, and implies it is a pre-analysis (before paying). However, it does not explicitly state that it does not execute the optimization or alter any state, which could be inferred but not stated.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the core action and cost benefit ('for free'), followed by output expectations and usage guidance. Every phrase contributes value with no redundancy.

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?

Despite having a complex nested parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description conveys what the tool does, what it returns (decision block with specific fields), and when to use it ('before paying for cortex_optimize'). This is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for the 'problem' parameter and its nested fields. The description does not need to add parameter details, and baseline 3 is appropriate. It adds no new parameter-level semantics beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb 'Analyze' and clearly identifies the resource: 'an optimization problem.' It distinguishes itself from siblings by stating it returns a 'decision block' and positioning itself as the free pre-check before 'paying for cortex_optimize.'

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?

Explicitly instructs the agent to 'Always call this before paying for cortex_optimize,' directly naming the alternative and establishing a clear ordering. This leaves no ambiguity about when to use this tool versus its paid sibling.

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