cortex_add_test

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Add', implying creation, but doesn't mention potential side effects (e.g., does it create a test record that affects other tools?), required permissions, or what happens if the feature_id is invalid or omitted. Minimal transparency.

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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the core action. It is front-loaded and free of fluff. However, the brevity comes at the cost of missing contextual details that could be added without losing conciseness.

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 number of sibling tools and the optional feature_id, the description lacks completeness. It doesn't explain what 'linked to a feature' means in practice, whether the feature must exist, or the behavior when feature_id is omitted. The agent may misuse the tool without broader 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 input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (100% coverage), so the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. The baseline is 3; no extra parameter context is given, but this is acceptable given schema coverage.

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 action ('Add a test') and the relationship ('linked to a feature'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like cortex_add_feature or cortex_add_decision by specifying 'test' as the resource, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., cortex_update_test for existing tests), nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., feature must exist) or when not to use it. The agent has no context to decide between adding a test vs. adding a decision or feature.

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