nexo_adaptive_weights

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly labels the operation as 'View', implying read-only and non-destructive behavior. The listed content (static/learned, training stats, etc.) sets expectations for what the tool returns. However, it does not address potential access restrictions or side effects, though these are unlikely given the zero-parameter read nature.

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 a single, efficient sentence. It front-loads the action ('View') and uses a dash to separate action from details. No redundant words; every part contributes to understanding the tool's output.

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 zero parameters, lack of output schema, and many siblings, the description is largely complete. It names the key output categories, allowing the agent to understand what information it will receive. However, it does not describe the output format (e.g., JSON structure) or any pagination, which would be useful for a view tool.

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 has zero parameters (input schema is empty), and schema description coverage is 100% trivially. Per guidelines, baseline score for 0 parameters is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, but could explicitly note that no inputs are required. It does not, but this is minor.

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 with the verb 'View' and identifies the resource as 'adaptive weights'. It enumerates specific aspects shown (static vs learned, training stats, shadow mode, drift), effectively distinguishing it from siblings like nexo_adaptive_history or nexo_adaptive_mode.

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 usage for viewing adaptive weights but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its many adaptive siblings (e.g., nexo_adaptive_history, nexo_adaptive_mode). No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context from names alone.

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