nexo_automation_supervisor

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

The description explicitly states 'read-only', which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose other behaviors such as authentication needs, rate limits, or output format details. The markdown parameter's effect is not explained.

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?

A single, concise sentence with no wasted words. The description is front-loaded with the key verb and subject, effectively communicating the tool's purpose.

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 tool is simple (one optional param, no output schema), and the description covers scope and read-only nature. But it lacks details on return value or behavior when markdown is true/false, which would be helpful for an 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 0% schema description coverage, the description should clarify the markdown parameter. It only mentions 'report' but does not explain how the boolean markdown parameter affects the output, leaving the agent uncertain about its semantics.

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's a read-only supervisor report covering automations, cron runs, cron spool, and Evolution policy. This is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like nexo_automation_reconcile, but could be more precise about the report's contents.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., nexo_automation_reconcile). The description only implies usage via the 'read-only' qualifier, lacking context for when not to use it.

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