cortex_get_context

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden and mostly drops it. It never states that this is a read-only operation, whether results are cached or fresh, or what "recent" means in time terms; the one real disclosure, "Review results are summaries," is a useful but isolated caveat.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the primary action is front-loaded. The second sentence is terse to the point of being cryptic, but nothing is padded or redundant.

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 shape is partly covered elsewhere, but for a no-annotation, zero-coverage-schema tool the description is thin. It omits read-only status, the meaning of "recent," the limit cap, and any guidance on selecting collections, leaving an agent to guess before calling.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% across three parameters. The description partially covers project_id and include ("selected collections in one project") but says nothing about limit or its hard maximum of 20, and never explains the enum values or the ordering semantics of "recent." It compensates for only about half the gap.

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?

"Recover recent records for selected collections in one project" gives a verb and a scope (single project, chosen collections), but "recover" and "collections" are domain jargon that map only loosely to the include enum (claims, assumptions, evidence, reviews). It never distinguishes this fetch from siblings like cortex_review or cortex_health, so an agent must infer that this is the bulk read path.

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 statement of prerequisites (e.g. that a project_id must already exist), and no mention of alternatives. Nothing tells the agent when to pick this over cortex_review or cortex_health; usage is only implied by the word "recent".

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