NEXO Brain

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool answers a question but doesn't describe what happens after answering (e.g., does it notify the other session, update status, or trigger follow-ups?), potential side effects, error conditions, or response format. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond the basic action.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by parameter details. There's no wasted text, but the structure could be slightly improved by integrating the Args section more seamlessly or adding a bit more context without sacrificing efficiency.

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?

For a tool with 2 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values), the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral details, usage context, and integration with sibling tools, making it adequate but with clear gaps for effective agent use.

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 description includes an 'Args' section that names and briefly describes the two parameters ('qid' and 'answer'), adding meaning beyond the schema's 0% description coverage. However, it lacks details like qid format/source or answer constraints (e.g., length, content rules). Given the low schema coverage, this provides basic but incomplete compensation.

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 action ('Answer') and the target ('a pending question from another session'), which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'nexo_ask' or 'nexo_check_answer', which appear related to question handling, leaving some ambiguity about when to use this specific tool versus others.

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 minimal guidance, only implying usage when there's a pending question from another session. It lacks explicit when-to-use instructions, alternatives (e.g., vs. 'nexo_ask'), prerequisites (e.g., how to obtain qid), or exclusions, leaving the agent with insufficient context for optimal tool selection.

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