cortex-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool runs multiple analyzers and aggregates results, which is useful behavioral context. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what 'taxonomy summary' entails, leaving gaps for a mutation-like operation.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and outcome with zero waste. Every word earns its place by conveying purpose and scope without redundancy or fluff.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely performs complex analysis and returns aggregated results. It mentions 'taxonomy summary' but does not explain the return format, error cases, or behavioral constraints, leaving significant gaps for an agent to use it effectively.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all 5 parameters. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining interactions between parameters or usage nuances. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Run ALL applicable analyzers against an observable') and the outcome ('collect aggregated results with taxonomy summary'), specifying both verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'cortex_run_analyzer' by emphasizing 'ALL applicable analyzers' and aggregation, not just running a single analyzer.

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 implies usage context by mentioning 'ALL applicable analyzers' and aggregation, suggesting this tool is for comprehensive analysis rather than targeted runs. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like 'cortex_run_analyzer' or 'cortex_run_analyzer_by_name', nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites.

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