nexus_monte_carlo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explains the process (simulate variables, requalify risks, compute IRC) and outputs (impact tables, recommendations), but omits side effects, auth requirements, or rate limits. Without annotations, more detail on behavioral traits would be beneficial.

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 paragraph that efficiently conveys purpose, process, and usage cues. It front-loads the key information and avoids fluff, though slightly longer than necessary.

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 (5 parameters, no output schema), the description covers inputs, process, outputs (tables and recommendations), and usage context. It lacks return format details, but the mention of output types is sufficient for most agents.

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 60%, yet the tool description adds minimal value beyond what the input schema already provides. Parameters like 'text' and 'analysis' are not elaborated beyond the schema descriptions. The description does not compensate for the missing schema coverage, leaving some parameters under-explained.

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: Monte Carlo simulation for stress-testing contract risk profiles under user-defined variables, with specific outputs like IRC and shielding recommendations. It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly naming the simulation and scenario analysis functionality.

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 includes explicit usage guidance: 'USAR CUANDO: el cliente quiere saber cómo aguanta el contrato shocks externos'. It also mentions cost (4 créditos). However, it does not specify when not to use or provide alternative tools, which slightly diminishes clarity.

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