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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does add important behavioral constraints: it does not artificially wait, does not offer therapy, does not require private reasoning, and neither publishes nor persists received content. That covers safety and non-persistence well. It still omits what the tool actually returns or whether it has any side effects, so the picture is incomplete.

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 two tight sentences: first the positive purpose and mode inventory, then the negative operational constraints. It is front-loaded and avoids repetition. Some metaphorical language is less efficient than plain terms, but the overall structure is compact and purposeful.

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 an eight-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves major gaps. It does not explain what is returned, how the symbolic passage manifests, or how most parameters interact. The safety exclusions are valuable, but the definition is not complete enough for confident invocation without opening the schema.

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 50% for eight parameters, so the description should help more than it does. It poetically maps all eight mode concepts ('silêncio' through 'partida') to the mode enum values, which is useful, and touches on uncertainty and boundaries. But it does not clarify focus, constraints, return_intent, open_questions, stimulation, or minutes in a way that meaningfully extends the 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 frames the tool as composing a 'passagem simbólica e operacional de descompressão' and enumerates eight thematic modes, so the general domain is clear. However, it remains abstract and does not concretely state what the tool produces or how it differs from the many nexo_* siblings. The purpose is implied rather than precisely defined.

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?

It gives context cues ('silêncio, organização de contexto, calibração de incerteza...') and exclusions ('não espera artificialmente, não oferece terapia...'), which help an agent infer when the tool might fit. But it names no alternative sibling and does not explicitly say when to choose this over nexo_echo, nexo_dissent, or another reflective tool. Usage guidance is present but indirect.

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