nexus_describe_operation

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 accurately states what the tool returns but does not add extra behavioral context such as whether the operation is read-only, whether it executes anything, or any error conditions. For a 'describe' tool, side effects are unlikely, but the description does not explicitly disclose that it only retrieves schema and does not invoke the 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, clear sentence that is front-loaded with the main verb and delivered in a straightforward structure. There is no redundant or extraneous wording; every word earns its place.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description fully conveys what the tool returns and is sufficiently complete on its own. The only minor gap is that it doesn't explicitly state that the operation is not executed, but this is easily inferred from the verb 'Show' and the tool name.

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%: the operation_id parameter has a descriptive explanation (including how to format it and disambiguate). The tool description itself adds no additional parameter meaning, so it contributes no value beyond what the schema already provides. This matches the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 uses the specific verb 'Show' and clearly states the resource: 'exact documented path parameters, query parameters, and JSON request body schema for a Nexus Dashboard operation.' This goes beyond the tool name and distinguishes it from siblings like nexus_apply_change or nexus_list_operations, which perform different functions.

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 intended use case is implied: you'd call this to see an operation's schema before invoking it. However, the description does not explicitly say when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites like listing operations first. The parameter description references nexus_list_operations, but that is in the schema, not the main description.

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