cortex_tick_file

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions saving a checkpoint conditionally ('if file exists on disk'), but omits details like overwriting behavior, failure modes (e.g., file not found), permissions required, or side effects on the file tree. The transparency is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 two sentences, front-loading the main action. Every word contributes meaning. No extraneous information.

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 has 5 parameters (1 required) and no output schema, the description covers the core action but lacks details on return values, what 'checkpoint' entails, or behavior when parameters are omitted. It is adequate but leaves gaps.

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 coverage is 100%, so the input schema fully describes the parameters. The description does not add new meaning beyond what the schema provides. For example, it doesn't explain how feature_id or test_id are used. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Mark a file as created/done' and the resource 'file tree', making the tool's purpose explicit. It also mentions saving a checkpoint, which adds specificity. Among sibling tools like cortex_log_progress or cortex_add_feature, this tool's file-marking function is distinct.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. However, the purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer usage: when needing to mark a file's status in the file tree. Lacks when-not-to-use or alternative tool references.

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