cortex_run

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

The description reveals full behavioral details: what triggers (cycle), what it does (consolidation, reinforcement), and the return format (JSON with counts). Annotations indicate destructiveHint=false, which is consistent with the non-destructive nature described.

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 extremely concise with only three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, details, and returns. No filler or redundancy.

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?

All required information is present: purpose, actions, automatic schedule, tier requirement, and output format. No gaps given the simplicity of the tool (no parameters, output schema exists).

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?

There are zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter details, which is acceptable as there are none to describe. Baseline 4 for no parameters.

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 'Manually trigger a Cortex cycle' and explains the actions (consolidation, reinforcement). It distinguishes from sibling tools like cortex_status which only shows status, and other memory operations.

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 explicit context on when to use (manual trigger) and notes it normally runs automatically. It also mentions the Pro tier requirement. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives.

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