cortex_insights

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

The description aligns with the readOnlyHint annotation by stating it lists insights. It adds behavioral context beyond annotations, such as the enterprise requirement and the return format (JSON string). No contradictions.

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 concise with three sentences plus structured Args/Returns. It front-loads the purpose and contains no unnecessary words.

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's simplicity (one parameter, read-only, output schema present), the description sufficiently covers the purpose, behavior, and parameter. It could elaborate on the nature of insights but is adequate for correct invocation.

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 no description for the 'limit' parameter (0% coverage). The description compensates by defining it as 'Maximum insights to return (default 20)', adding clear semantic meaning.

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 'List auto-generated memory insights' and explains that Cortex detects patterns and generates insights automatically. It provides a clear verb and resource, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like cortex_run or memory_stats.

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 includes a prerequisite ('Requires Enterprise tier or Novyx Cloud'), giving context on when to use the tool. However, it does not provide guidance on when not to use it or mention alternatives among the siblings.

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