nexus_list_exploration_sessions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a listing operation, which implies it's likely read-only and non-destructive, but it doesn't explicitly confirm this or describe other traits like pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens if no sessions exist. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, consisting of a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose and optional parameter. There is no wasted language or redundancy, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by contributing essential information without unnecessary elaboration.

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 that there is an output schema (which should cover return values), the description doesn't need to explain outputs. However, with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and one parameter, the description provides only basic purpose and filtering info. It lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, and parameter semantics, making it incomplete for a tool in a complex server with many siblings. It's adequate but has clear 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 adds some meaning by mentioning that 'nexus_tag' is an optional filter, which clarifies its purpose beyond the schema's basic type definition. However, with 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, the description doesn't fully compensate—it doesn't explain what a 'nexus_tag' is, its format, or how filtering works. Since there's only one parameter, the baseline is 4, but the lack of detailed semantic context reduces this to 3.

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 action ('List all exploration sessions') and the resource ('exploration sessions'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'nexus_start_exploration' or 'nexus_explore_step' by focusing on listing rather than creating or modifying sessions. However, it doesn't specify what 'exploration sessions' are in this context, which prevents a perfect score.

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 minimal guidance by mentioning optional filtering by 'nexus_tag', but it doesn't explain when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't clarify if this should be used instead of 'nexus_list_keystones' or 'nexus_glimpse' for similar listing purposes, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. This lack of context leaves the agent guessing about appropriate usage scenarios.

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