nexus_generate_capability_map

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds only the notion that operations are bucketed by functional domain, which hints at output shape but says nothing about how domains are determined or whether the result is persisted anywhere. With annotations carrying most of the burden, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the core action plus grouping criterion arrive immediately. It is efficient but borders on under-specification for a tool whose name promises a 'capability map' that the sentence never defines.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and with no parameters the call mechanics are trivial. Still, the description leaves open what a 'capability map' is, whether generation requires a loaded spec, and how this differs from sibling inventory/catalog generators — gaps that matter for a tool in a dense family of eleven siblings.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. Schema coverage is 100% and the empty properties object is self-explanatory.

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 gives a specific verb ('Group') and resource ('the instance's REST operations') plus the grouping dimension ('functional domain'), so the agent knows exactly what is produced. It does not, however, distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as nexus_openapi_list_operations or nexus_generate_inventory_json, which an agent could easily confuse with this grouping output.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus nexus_openapi_list_operations or nexus_generate_inventory_json, and no stated preconditions (e.g. that an OpenAPI spec must already be loaded). The agent must infer the use case entirely from the one-line purpose.

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