nexo_api_call

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

The description discloses the key behavioral trait that the session bearer is auto-loaded from the OS keychain and the agent never sees tokens. However, it does not mention error handling, rate limits, idempotency behavior, or response format. The high schema coverage mitigates some gaps, but more depth would improve transparency.

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 extremely concise with two sentences. The first sentence states the core function, and the second adds essential auth context and usage scope. Every word adds value with no fluff.

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 covers auth well but does not explain what the response looks like (e.g., raw JSON from the API) or error handling. Given no output schema, more completeness about return values would benefit the agent.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema; it focuses on the tool's purpose rather than parameter details.

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 it makes authenticated HTTP requests to the NEXO Desktop backend, specifying the scope of endpoints (any /api/* endpoint user has permission for). It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools by being the generic API call tool, but does not explicitly differentiate.

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 clear guidance on when to use this tool: 'Use this for any /api/* endpoint the user has permission for'. It does not explicitly list when not to use or alternatives, but the usage context is specific and helpful.

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