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 states the tool checks answer status but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like what constitutes an 'answered' state, response format, error handling, or any side effects. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how the tool behaves beyond its basic purpose.

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 concise and front-loaded, with the main purpose stated first and parameter details following. It avoids unnecessary words, but the structure could be slightly improved by integrating the parameter explanation more seamlessly rather than as a separate 'Args:' section.

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 low complexity (1 parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is somewhat complete. However, with no annotations and minimal behavioral details, it lacks context on how the tool interacts with the system (e.g., dependencies on 'nexo_ask'). The output schema helps, but the description should provide more operational 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds minimal semantics by explaining 'qid: The question ID from nexo_ask.' This clarifies the parameter's origin and purpose, though it doesn't detail format or constraints. With one parameter and some added context, it meets the baseline but doesn't fully compensate for the low schema coverage.

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: 'Check if a question has been answered.' It specifies the verb ('Check') and resource ('a question'), making the intent unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'nexo_answer' or 'nexo_ask', 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 implies usage by referencing 'qid: The question ID from nexo_ask,' suggesting it should be used after asking a question. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'nexo_answer' or 'nexo_decision_outcome') or any exclusions, leaving some ambiguity.

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