nemesis_protect_llm

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations: it discloses that the tool creates an app (side effect), returns a token, and requires an API key. This complements the readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true annotations without contradicting them.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two sentences that immediately state the purpose, mechanism, and requirement. Every clause adds value with no 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 one-parameter schema, the presence of annotations, and the description covering purpose, side effect, output (token), and prerequisites, the tool definition is fully complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly. No output schema exists, but the token return is explicitly stated.

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?

The single parameter 'name' is fully described in the schema with an example ('support-chatbot'). The description does not add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline of 3.

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 uses a specific verb ('Protect') and resource ('LLM feature' via an 'llm-kind Shield app'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like nemesis_protect or nemesis_create_app. It also explicitly describes the action (creates an app and returns a token) and the intended use (wrapping model calls).

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 clear context: it is for protecting LLM features, requires NEMESIS_API_KEY, and describes the follow-up step of wrapping model calls. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it lacks explicit exclusion guidance.

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