nexus_glimpse

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it's a local extraction with no API calls, instant execution, and user control over granularity. However, it lacks details on permissions, error handling, or what happens if files already exist (though 'reset_if_exists' parameter hints at this). It doesn't contradict annotations, but could be more comprehensive for a tool with 4 parameters and output schema.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core action 'GLIMPSE → TERRAIN + PHANTOM GEM' and key details like 'zero API calls'. Each sentence adds value: the first states the purpose, the second explains the mechanism and outputs, and the third covers benefits. There's minimal waste, though some phrasing like 'GLIMPSE → TERRAIN + PHANTOM GEM' could be clearer.

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 complexity (4 parameters, output schema exists, no annotations), the description is partially complete. It covers the purpose, mechanism, and benefits well, and the output schema means it doesn't need to explain return values. However, with 0% schema coverage and no parameter explanations, it falls short in fully compensating for the lack of structured data, leaving gaps in how to use the tool effectively.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for all 4 parameters. It mentions 'granularity by expanding nodes' which loosely relates to parameters like 'mode' or 'workflowy_root_id', but doesn't explain any parameters explicitly (e.g., what 'nexus_tag' or 'reset_if_exists' do). This leaves significant gaps in understanding parameter meanings beyond what the bare schema provides.

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 captures expanded Workflowy content via WebSocket GLIMPSE and creates two JSON files (coarse_terrain.json and phantom_gem.json) from a local extraction. It specifies the verb 'captures' and resources 'coarse_terrain.json and phantom_gem.json', though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'workflowy_glimpse' or 'workflowy_export_node' beyond mentioning 'zero API calls'.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: for capturing expanded Workflowy nodes via WebSocket without API calls, with instant results and user-controlled granularity. It implies alternatives by noting 'zero API calls' (suggesting other tools might use APIs) and references sibling tools like 'workflowy_get_node__WARNING__prefer_glimpse', but doesn't explicitly name when-not-to-use scenarios or direct alternatives.

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