cortex_turn

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It conveys that state persists across turns via a session, which is useful, but says nothing about auth/tenant-key requirements, whether sessionId must be reused, mutation of stored state, or latency/rate characteristics of a stateful call.

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 tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the usage hint second. Nothing is padded, though the brevity borders on under-specification for a stateful tool.

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 5-parameter stateful tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin. It omits what a 'turn' returns, how sessionId ties calls together, and how it relates to the memory tools, leaving real gaps an agent needs to call it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters including apiKey, userId, message, sessionId, and systemPrompt. The description adds the concept of session continuity but no format, precedence, or interaction details beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 verb-ish action ('turn' over a session) and a qualifier ('stateful'), but 'turn' is jargon that an agent must infer means 'send a message and get a model response.' It does not distinguish this tool from its closest siblings cortex_memory_store or cortex_memory_search, leaving the agent to guess which Cortex tool to pick.

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?

'Use for multi-step flows that must stay coherent' gives an implied usage context for stateful conversations, but names no alternatives and gives no when-not guidance (e.g., single-shot vs. session-based). The agent can infer some usage but must guess at the boundaries.

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