nexus_info

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a passive report and notes the features map is 'read-only {feature_*: bool}', but never states side-effect profile, permissions, or cost. With an output schema present the return values needn't be explained, so this is adequate but thin.

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 tight sentences: the enumerated payload is front-loaded and the usage trigger follows. Dense and jargon-heavy, but every clause carries information and nothing is padding.

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 covered; the description still summarizes the payload and gives a trigger. For a zero-parameter read-only info tool this is close to complete, with only the safety/permission profile left unstated.

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 is 4 (plus schema coverage is 100%). There is no parameter meaning the description could add.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Report server versions') and enumerates the exact fields returned (package_version, schema_version, surface_revision, resource_versions, features). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like capability_list or coordination_health, though it does not name those siblings explicitly.

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?

Provides a concrete trigger: 'Call when behaviour disagrees with cached schemas.' That is a real when-to-use condition rather than implied usage. It lacks any when-not guidance or named alternatives, which keeps it out of the top band.

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