cortex-status

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. "Return" implies a non-mutating read, which is some signal, but nothing is said about what happens with an unknown or expired session_id, whether the call blocks, or what constitutes "state." For a session-inspection tool with zero annotation coverage, this is thin.

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 verb and resource, with no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of the missing details noted elsewhere rather than being optimally informative.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, with no annotations, an undocumented parameter, and no hint of how this relates to the cortex-start/cortex-stop session lifecycle, an agent lacks what it needs to call this confidently in edge cases.

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 single parameter session_id has 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not explain it at all. It is presumably the identifier produced by cortex-start, but that relationship is left entirely to inference. With only one parameter, a sentence tying session_id to its source would have been cheap and valuable.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: "Return the current state of a Cortex runtime session." This clearly separates it from siblings like cortex-call, cortex-start, and cortex-stop, which imply actions rather than a status read. It does not explicitly name an alternative, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. An agent must infer that this tool is for inspecting a session rather than invoking or stopping one. Nothing indicates when a status check is appropriate versus calling cortex-call directly.

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