nexus_start_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 and does so effectively. It explains the engine's control of traversal, the return of frontiers for labeling, the distinction between dfs_guided modes, and the editable parameter's effect on mutation capabilities. It doesn't cover rate limits, error conditions, or session persistence details, but provides substantial operational context.

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 with three sentences that each add value: first establishes the core purpose, second explains the engine's role and frontier mechanics, third details parameter-driven behaviors. It's front-loaded with the main action and avoids redundancy, though the second sentence is somewhat dense.

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 (9 parameters, no annotations, but with output schema), the description provides good coverage of what the tool does, how it behaves, and key parameter effects. The output schema existence means return values don't need explanation. It could benefit from more guidance on parameter interactions or error scenarios, but is largely complete for session initiation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for 9 parameters, the description compensates well by explaining the purpose and effect of key parameters like editable (enables update-and-engulf actions) and implies context for others (root_id for subtree, frontier_size for batch control). It doesn't detail all 9 parameters individually, but provides meaningful semantic context beyond the bare schema.

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 with specific verbs ('start a NEXUS exploration session') and resources ('over a Workflowy subtree'), distinguishing it from siblings like nexus_explore_step (which performs steps within a session) or nexus_scry (which appears to be a different operation). It specifies the engine's role in controlling traversal and returning frontiers for labeling.

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 by explaining the exploration session initiation and contrasting it with other modes (dfs_guided_explicit vs. dfs_guided_bulk). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternative tools for different scenarios, such as when to use nexus_resume_exploration instead.

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