nexus_redteam

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility. It discloses the destructive mode, adversarial nature, and output structure (vulnerabilities with severity, risk score 1-100). It also mentions cost (5 credits). It does not cover every edge case (e.g., document size limits) but 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?

The description is highly concise: three sentences covering purpose, output, usage scenarios, and cost. Information is front-loaded and each sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 simple input (one string parameter) and no output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's function, output fields, and appropriate use cases. Minor omissions (e.g., error handling, limits) are not critical for this straightforward tool.

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% (one parameter with description). The tool description reinforces the parameter's purpose ('texto íntegro del documento a atacar adversarialmente') and adds context about typical use (contracts). This adds meaning beyond the schema alone.

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 adversarial analysis of documents, listing specific elements like legal loopholes, trap clauses, and catastrophic risks. It uses a strong verb ('análisis hostil') and identifies the resource (document), and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'nexus_adversarial' by specifying a destructive mode and unique output fields.

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 provides usage scenarios with 'USAR CUANDO:' including pre-signing strategic contracts, M&A audit, and aggressive due diligence. It does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, but the positive guidance is clear and context-rich.

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