nexus_list_operations

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only explains the tool's purpose and when to use it, but does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., a list of operation IDs, summaries, pagination) or any other side effects. This lack of behavioral detail is a significant gap for a tool invoked before taking actions.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core function and then the usage guidance. Every word earns its place, with no redundant information. This is an ideal example of conciseness.

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?

The tool has four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description must cover both behavior and return values. It only covers the purpose and usage, leaving the agent uncertain about what the tool actually returns (e.g., list structure, fields per operation). This is incomplete for a tool meant to guide subsequent actions.

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 75% (three of four parameters have descriptions), but the 'limit' parameter has no description. The tool description itself adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, and it does not explain how 'search', 'method', or 'service' interact or affect results. Since the schema is not fully complete and the description does not compensate, the score is low.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Find documented Nexus Dashboard Infrastructure or Manage API operations.' It uses a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('operations'), and the phrase 'Use this before an unfamiliar read or change' signals that this is a discovery tool, differentiating it from sibling tools like nexus_read or nexus_describe_operation.

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 gives explicit usage context: 'Use this before an unfamiliar read or change.' This tells the agent when to invoke the tool, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools. Since it provides a clear directive without exclusions, it earns a 4.

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