nexus_audit

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explains the tool performs an audit that generates a verification block and confidence score, mentions cost (1-2 credits), and describes the adversarial nature (Nodo B). However, it does not clarify if the tool is read-only or modifies any data, nor does it detail authentication or rate limits. The basic behavioral context is present but incomplete.

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 a single dense paragraph that front-loads the main purpose and then provides usage conditions and output details. It is efficient with no wasted words, though structuring with bullet points could improve scanability. For the amount of information conveyed, it is appropriately 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 7 parameters (2 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the tool's purpose, prerequisite, output (confidence score and V-XX block), and cost. It lacks details on the exact format of the verification block output, which would help the agent process results. While adequate for basic decision-making, it leaves some gaps in expected output structure.

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 57% (4 of 7 parameters have descriptions). The tool description adds context that the 'analysis' parameter should come from `nexus_analyze`, which is valuable beyond the schema. However, parameters like 'jurisdiction' and 'jurisdictionB' lack descriptions in both schema and description, leaving their purpose ambiguous. The description does not fully compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 performs a cross-audit of a previous analysis (Nodo A) using adversarial control (Nodo B), specifying it detects unsupported claims, misassigned locks, omissions, and contradictions, and generates a verification block with a confidence score. This distinguishes it from siblings like nexus_analyze (initial analysis) and nexus_adversarial (likely separate adversarial function).

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 explicit usage guidance: 'USE WHEN: user wants a second validation layer before presenting to client or court' and states the prerequisite of having run `nexus_analyze` first. It implies when not to use (if previous analysis not performed) but does not explicitly compare against sibling alternatives like nexus_adversarial or nexus_redteam, which could also be used for validation.

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