cortex_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds behavioral context by stating what fields are returned and the requirement, which goes beyond the annotation. It does not describe edge cases or potential side effects, but for a read-only status tool this is sufficient.

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, each earning its place: the first states the primary function, the second lists specific data points, and the third notes the requirement. No wasted 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 no parameters, an output schema exists to define the return format, and the description covers the tool's purpose, returned information, and access requirements. This is complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 parameters and 100% schema description coverage. With no parameters, the description is the sole source of meaning. It clarifies that the tool returns a JSON string with status and last run info, which adds value over the empty schema.

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 uses the verb 'Get' to clearly state it retrieves Cortex status. It specifies the exact information shown (enabled, last run time, consolidation/reinforcement stats) and the required tier. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like cortex_run or cortex_insights, which have different purposes.

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 mentions a prerequisite (Pro tier or Novyx Cloud) but does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like cortex_insights or cortex_run. It does not specify scenarios where this status check is appropriate or when other tools should be preferred.

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