nexus_adversarial

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions a credit cost (2-3 credits) which hints at resource usage but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, whether it modifies any state, or what authentication is required. The generative nature suggests no side effects, but this is not made explicit.

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 concise (3-4 sentences) with no redundancy. It front-loads the core purpose, provides a sibling distinction, a usage guideline, and ends with cost. Every sentence adds value.

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?

The description covers purpose, usage, sibling distinction, and cost. However, it lacks details about the output format (prose text is implied but not explicit). Since there is no output schema, the description should more clearly describe what the agent can expect as a result.

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 coverage is 33% (only `text` and `analysis` have descriptions). The description adds context for `analysis` (causes argumentation against each conclusion). For other parameters (`jurisdiction`, `legalBranch`, `professionalRole`, `language`), no additional meaning beyond enum/defaults is provided. The description does not fully compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: adversarial argumentation (Nodo C — modo contraparte). It specifies it constructs the strongest counter-arguments against conclusions from Nodo A. It also distinguishes from sibling `nexus_redteam` by contrasting their outputs (prose vs. structured JSON).

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: prepare litigation or anticipate objections in negotiations. It provides a direct WHEN-TO-USE clause: 'USAR CUANDO: el cliente necesita anticipar objeciones de la otra parte.' It also differentiates from `nexus_redteam` clearly.

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