nexus_read

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses the critical safety trait (read-only, never changes configuration), which is valuable. However, it omits other behavioral details such as how errors are reported, response structure, or any dependencies on operation documentation.

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, both front-loaded with the core purpose and safety guarantee. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and easily scannable.

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 is a generic wrapper with three parameters and no output schema, so the description needs to set expectations. It covers read-only safety but offers no guidance on how to determine valid operation IDs or how to populate path/query parameters. It also does not reference sibling tools like nexus_list_operations or nexus_describe_operation for further context, leaving significant 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?

The description itself adds no parameter information. The schema covers operation_id only (33% coverage), pointing to nexus_list_operations, but path_parameters and query_parameters are generic objects with no explanations. Given the low schema coverage, the description should have compensated but did not.

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 calls a 'documented read-only (GET) Nexus Dashboard API operation' and emphasizes it 'never changes configuration,' which distinguishes it from the sibling change tools. The verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.

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 read-only and 'never changes configuration' statements explicitly signal that this tool is for retrieval, not modifications. The operation_id schema description further guides the agent to get the ID from nexus_list_operations, providing useful context. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for when to use them.

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