nexus_resume_exploration

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. It mentions the tool resumes sessions and provides two identification methods, but doesn't describe what 'resuming' entails, whether it requires specific permissions, what happens to session state, or any rate limits. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 perfectly concise and well-structured. It uses just two sentences: the first states the purpose and context, the second explains the parameter options. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary information.

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 has 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage and an output schema exists, the description provides adequate but incomplete context. It covers the core purpose and two key parameters, but doesn't address the other two parameters or behavioral aspects. With an output schema, it doesn't need to explain return values, but should provide more complete parameter documentation.

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 mentions two parameters (session_id and nexus_tag) and explains their purpose: 'Provide either session_id (exact) or nexus_tag (finds latest session for tag).' With 0% schema description coverage and 4 total parameters, this adds meaningful context for those two parameters. However, it doesn't mention the other two parameters (frontier_size and include_history_summary), leaving them completely undocumented.

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 purpose: 'Resume an exploration session after MCP restart or in new conversation.' It specifies the verb ('resume') and resource ('exploration session'), and provides context about when to use it. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'nexus_start_exploration' or 'nexus_list_exploration_sessions', which would be needed for 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 clear context for when to use this tool: 'after MCP restart or in new conversation.' It also mentions two alternative ways to identify the session (session_id or nexus_tag). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or compare it to alternatives like 'nexus_start_exploration' for new sessions, which prevents a perfect score.

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