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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'search past code changes,' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify permissions, rate limits, data sources, or return format. The description lacks details on how results are presented or any constraints beyond the implied scope.

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—one sentence with two illustrative examples—and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word adds value without redundancy, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 (search with 3 parameters) and lack of annotations, the description is minimal but covers the basic purpose. An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained. However, with 0% schema coverage and no behavioral details, it's incomplete for effective use without additional context.

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 for undocumented parameters. It doesn't mention any parameters (query, files, days) or their meanings. The example questions hint at 'X' and 'Y' as search targets but don't map clearly to the schema, leaving parameters largely unexplained.

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 with specific verbs ('search past code changes') and provides example questions that illustrate its function ('what did we change in X?' or 'why did we touch Y?'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'nexo_change_log' by focusing on search rather than logging, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 implies usage through example questions ('what did we change in X?' or 'why did we touch Y?'), suggesting it's for investigating code changes. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'nexo_change_log' or 'nexo_decision_search', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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