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. While it mentions logging with 'full context', it doesn't specify whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, what permissions are required, how the log is stored, or any rate limits. For a tool that appears to create records (implied by 'Log'), this lack of behavioral detail is a significant gap.

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 and front-loaded with all necessary information in a single, efficient sentence. Every word earns its place by specifying the action and key context elements without any redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 the tool's complexity (9 parameters, no annotations, but has an output schema), the description is minimally adequate. The presence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to explain return values, but the lack of behavioral context and incomplete parameter guidance leaves significant gaps. It meets the bare minimum for a logging tool but doesn't provide comprehensive guidance.

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 and 9 parameters (3 required, 6 optional), the description provides minimal parameter guidance. It lists context elements ('what, why, trigger, affects, risks') that map to some parameters, but doesn't explain the purpose or format of 'files', 'verify', 'commit_ref', or 'session_id'. The description adds some value but doesn't adequately compensate for the complete lack of schema descriptions.

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: 'Log a code/config change with full context: what, why, trigger, affects, risks'. It specifies the verb ('Log') and resource ('code/config change') with additional context elements. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'nexo_change_commit' or 'nexo_change_search', which prevents a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'nexo_change_commit' and 'nexo_change_search' available, there's no indication of when logging a change is appropriate versus committing or searching for changes. This leaves the agent without contextual usage direction.

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