nexo_api_call

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

With no annotations, the description carries transparency requirements. It discloses automatic bearer token loading from the OS keychain and that the agent never sees tokens. However, it omits other behaviors like response format, error handling, or rate limits, leaving gaps.

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?

Very concise: two sentences that cover the core purpose and authentication mechanism. Front-loaded with the action and target, no unnecessary text.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is moderately complete for a generic HTTP tool. It explains authentication and typical endpoints but lacks details on response structure, error scenarios, and optional parameters.

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%, baseline 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it does not explain the body, headers, idempotency key, or base_url parameters. No extra value provided over the schema.

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: making authenticated HTTP requests to the NEXO Desktop backend. It specifies the base URL and provides examples of endpoints (/api/*), distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle specific NEXO operations.

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?

It explicitly states to use for any /api/* endpoint the user has permission for, with concrete examples (provider-proxy/*, credits/*, etc.). However, it does not mention when not to use it (e.g., when a more specific sibling tool exists), so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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