nexus_scry

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It hints at creating a 'new geography' (likely a session or exploration context) and warns about large-scale operations, but omits critical details: whether this is read-only or mutative, what 'reset_if_exists' does, error conditions, or the output format. The metaphorical language obscures rather than clarifies operational traits.

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 front-loaded with metaphorical jargon ('CORINTHIAN NEXUS', 'ETHER', 'TERRAIN') that hinders clarity, followed by practical advice. While not verbose, the structure is inefficient—the first sentence could be simplified to state the tool's function directly, and the second sentence mixes parameter guidance with vague future actions.

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 6 parameters (4 required), 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema (which relieves some burden), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the tool's role in the broader 'nexus' workflow, how it differs from similar tools like 'workflowy_scry', or the implications of parameter choices beyond warnings. The metaphorical approach leaves gaps in practical understanding.

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. It mentions 'nexus_tag' (names the geography), 'max_depth', 'child_limit', and 'max_nodes' (guard against large SCRYs), but provides no specifics on valid ranges, formats, or the purpose of 'workflowy_root_id' and 'reset_if_exists'. This leaves most parameters inadequately explained beyond their names.

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 uses metaphorical language ('INITIATE a CORINTHIAN NEXUS on the ETHER', 'COARSE SCRY of Workflowy') but conveys the core action of exploring a Workflowy structure under a root node with depth/child limits. It distinguishes from siblings like 'workflowy_scry' by mentioning 'nexus_tag' and 'TERRAIN' creation, though the distinction is abstract rather than functional.

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 advises to 'keep [max_depth and child_limit] minimal' and warns about 'accidental 1M-node SCRYs' with max_nodes, but lacks explicit when-to-use guidance versus alternatives like 'workflowy_scry' or 'nexus_glimpse'. It mentions 'Later, you will IGNITE the ETHER more deeply on selected SHARDS' (referencing 'nexus_ignite_shards'), but this is vague and not a clear usage rule.

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