nexus_plan_execute

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and discloses the core execution model well: independent steps run in parallel, dependent steps wait and receive prior-step context, and the orchestrator/executor division of labor. It does not cover failure semantics, side effects, or resource consumption, but the essential behavioral traits are explicitly stated.

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 four substantive sentences are tight, front-loaded, and each carries meaning: purpose, parallelism, dependency behavior, and mode selection. The closing tagline "Opus plans, Nexus executes" is redundant with the opening sentence and adds branding rather than information, costing the description a perfect score.

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 complex orchestration tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description explains the execution model but omits return format, failure flow behavior, and how results correlate to step IDs, which an agent needs to interpret outcomes. The rich, self-documenting schema (100% parameter coverage including on_failure and inject_context_from) compensates significantly, making this adequate but with clear gaps.

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 coverage is 100%, so every parameter including nested step properties is already documented, setting the baseline at 3. The description adds genuine value by giving selection criteria for the mode enum ('agent' = file access/code execution, 'prompt' = analysis/review) that the schema does not provide, helping agents choose correctly.

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?

"Execute a structured multi-step plan where Claude is the orchestrator and Nexus agents do the work" states a specific verb, resource, and scope in one sentence. The parallel/dependency execution model clearly distinguishes it from single-agent siblings like nexus_agent_run or nexus_agent_multi, even without naming them.

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 actionable within-tool guidance ("Use mode='agent' for steps that need file access/code execution. Use mode='prompt' for analysis/review steps") but never says when to choose this tool over its 14 siblings, such as nexus_agent_run or nexus_council. Usage context is implied rather than explicit, and no alternatives or exclusions are named.

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