NEXO Brain

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the question is delivered asynchronously ('on next heartbeat'), and a qid is returned for later answer checking. However, it lacks details on permissions, error conditions, rate limits, or what happens if the target session doesn't exist—important for a communication tool.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by arg and return details in a clear format. It's concise with no wasted sentences, though the 'Args:' and 'Returns:' sections could be integrated more smoothly into prose.

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 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description does a fair job: it explains parameters and mentions the return value (qid). However, as a communication tool with many siblings, it lacks context on delivery guarantees, error handling, or integration with other tools (e.g., 'nexo_check_answer'), leaving gaps in completeness.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics: 'from_sid: Your session ID,' 'to_sid: Target session ID,' and 'question: The question text.' This clarifies each parameter's role beyond the bare schema types, though it doesn't specify format constraints (e.g., session ID structure).

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: 'Ask a question to another session' with the mechanism 'they see it on next heartbeat.' It specifies the verb (ask) and resource (another session), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'nexo_send' or 'nexo_answer' which might have related communication functions.

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: it mentions that answers can be checked later using the returned qid, but offers no explicit when-to-use advice, no prerequisites (e.g., session IDs must be valid), and no alternatives among the many sibling tools (e.g., when to use this vs. 'nexo_send' or 'nexo_answer').

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