nero_spawn

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals persistence and lifetime ('stays alive until killed') but does not disclose resource consumption, cleanup requirements, or rate limits. The input schema provides some behavioral cues via max_history and max_tokens.

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 sentences, no unnecessary words, front-loaded with the core purpose. Excellent conciseness.

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?

The description is brief and does not explain return values or side effects. For a tool with 7 parameters, it could provide more contextual completeness about how parameters affect behavior. However, the schema descriptions are thorough, so the description is minimally adequate.

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%, so baseline 3. The description adds no additional parameter-level guidance beyond what the schema already provides. It does not explain how parameters relate to the agent's behavior.

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 'Create' and the resource 'named persistent agent', and adds key trait 'stays alive in memory with full conversation history until killed' which distinguishes it from sibling tools like nero_ask or nero_kill.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., nero_configure?). It does not mention prerequisites or when not to use it. The description implies usage but lacks explicit context.

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