detect_nexus

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden but discloses almost nothing: it does not say whether detection is a local network probe, how long it may block, what happens on failure, or whether any state is mutated. 'Detect' implies a read-only check but that is left to inference.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, and the resource is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool, though it is terse to the point of ambiguity rather than genuinely dense with information.

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 values need not be explained, and a zero-parameter signature keeps the surface small. Still, with no annotations and no usage context, the agent lacks the minimum needed to know when this detection is preferable to the numerous sibling status/detection tools.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. Nothing in the description misrepresents the empty argument object.

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 gives a verb plus a resource ('Detect Msty Nexus local gateway'), which is more informative than the bare name 'detect_nexus'. However, 'detect' is left undefined — the agent cannot tell whether this performs a port/network probe, checks a config file, or reads a running process. It also does not differentiate itself from the sibling 'detect_msty_installation'.

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 guidance on when this detection should be run, what precondition triggers it, or how it relates to alternatives such as detect_msty_installation, get_vibe_proxy_status, or get_server_status. The agent must infer all routing decisions.

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