nexus_analyze

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

With no annotations, description carries full burden. It details the analysis process (extraction, jurisdiction application, certainty locks, blocking signals), mentions cost (~1-3 credits), and describes output structure. Lacks explicit statement about non-destructive nature, but overall provides substantial behavioral 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?

Description is well-structured: title, summary, output specifics, cost, and usage guidance. Front-loaded with purpose. Some verbosity in Spanish, but every sentence serves a purpose. Could be slightly more concise.

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 complexity (9 params, 1 required, no output schema), description covers purpose, usage, behavioral details, and output format. Includes cost and audit trail. Does not detail error handling or limitations, but is sufficient for an AI agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 100% with descriptions for all 9 parameters. Description adds context beyond schema, e.g., that 'jurisdictionB' activates MODULE-BILATERAL, and explains how 'mode' and 'professionalRole' affect analysis. This adds meaning for effective parameter use.

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?

Description starts with 'ANÁLISIS PRIMARIO JURÍDICO (Nodo A — ISO 31000)' and explicitly states it examines documents to extract parts, risks, clauses, deadlines, applicable norms, and relevant jurisprudence. It provides a clear verb and resource, and distinguishes from siblings by positioning itself as the primary legal analysis tool ('Nodo A').

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?

Includes explicit usage guidance: 'USAR CUANDO: el usuario aporta un documento jurídico y pide análisis de riesgos, viabilidad, cláusulas críticas, o defensa en juicio.' While it does not specify when not to use or list alternatives, the context from sibling tool names (e.g., nexus_adversarial, nexus_audit) implies differentiation.

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