cortex_status

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true. The description adds behavioral details beyond that, such as 'last run time' and 'consolidation/reinforcement stats', and notes the return type. No contradictions with annotations.

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 (4 sentences) and front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence adds value: purpose, details, requirement, and return format. 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?

For a simple status retrieval tool with no parameters, the description is complete. It covers the output (JSON string with status and last run info) and prerequisites. The output schema is available for return values, so additional detail is not needed.

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 no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter info. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description is appropriately minimal.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Get Cortex autonomous intelligence status.' It specifies what is shown (enabled, last run time, consolidation/reinforcement stats) and the return format (JSON string). This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like cortex_config or cortex_run.

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 a clear prerequisite: 'Requires Pro tier or Novyx Cloud.' This helps the agent understand when the tool is usable. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives among sibling tools.

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