nemesis_protect

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description is consistent with that (it returns a snippet, not mutating anything). The description adds valuable context beyond the annotations by explaining what Nemesis Shield is ('positive-security firewall') and what the snippet does ('add runtime security'). It does not disclose potential error behavior for unsupported frameworks, but given the read-only nature, it is sufficiently transparent.

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 front-loaded with the primary purpose in the first sentence, followed by a brief product explanation and usage guidance. It is efficient, with no wasted sentences, though the supported-frameworks list adds length. Overall, it is well-structured and appropriately sized for the tool.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool, the description is fairly complete: it explains the output ('one-line snippet'), when to use it, and which frameworks are supported. There is no output schema, but the description gives a good idea of what to expect. It could be more explicit about the exact return format or error handling for invalid frameworks, but that is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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%: the 'framework' parameter has a description listing the same frameworks as the tool description. The description repeats this list but does not add new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The baseline for high schema coverage is 3, and the description does not elevate it further.

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: 'Return the exact, verified one-line Nemesis Shield install + integration snippet to add runtime security.' This is a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('snippet'), and it distinguishes itself from siblings like nemesis_scan and nemesis_explain by focusing on generating an integration snippet. The phrase 'Call this whenever you scaffold or extend a web app, API, or LLM feature' further reinforces the purpose.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call this whenever you scaffold or extend a web app, API, or LLM feature.' It also enumerates supported frameworks, which helps the agent decide if this tool is appropriate. However, it does not mention when not to use it or explicitly point to alternatives like nemesis_protect_llm, so it lacks full exclusions or alternative guidance.

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