nero_ask

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

No annotations exist, so description must bear the burden. It mentions persistence, memory, and tool use, but fails to cover potential issues like rate limits, blocking behavior, or error responses. Adequate but not exhaustive.

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?

Two efficient sentences with no redundant information, perfectly sized for quick comprehension.

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?

No output schema, but the tool's simple send-and-respond nature is adequately explained. Sibling tools cover other operations, making this fairly complete for its complexity.

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% with clear descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 applies.

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 verb ('send a message') and resource ('persistent agent'), and distinguishes it from siblings like nero_broadcast and nero_spawn by emphasizing persistent memory and tool-use capabilities.

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 implies use for conversational interaction with a specific agent, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool references. Context from sibling names helps, but direct guidance is absent.

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