NEXO Brain

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions that 'force=True' skips discussion, hinting at an interactive or confirmatory behavior, but doesn't explain what happens without force (e.g., does it prompt the user?), potential side effects, or output format. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation coverage, as critical behavioral details are missing.

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, stating the core purpose in the first part and adding a key parameter detail in the second. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 (involving cognitive conflict detection), no annotations, and an output schema (which reduces need to explain returns), the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and a parameter nuance, but lacks details on behavior, error handling, or integration with siblings, leaving gaps for effective agent use.

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 adds meaning for 'force' by explaining it 'skips discussion,' but provides no context for 'instruction' (e.g., what constitutes a valid instruction or how conflicts are detected). With 2 parameters and low coverage, the description only partially addresses semantics, failing to fully clarify usage.

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: 'Detect conflicts between a new instruction and established LTM memories.' This specifies the verb ('detect conflicts') and resource ('LTM memories'), making it understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'nexo_cognitive_inspect' or 'nexo_cognitive_resolve', which appear related, so it doesn't reach the highest 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 implied usage guidance: it suggests using 'force=True to skip discussion,' indicating a scenario where bypassing dialogue is needed. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use instructions, alternatives (e.g., compared to other cognitive tools), or prerequisites, leaving room for ambiguity in tool selection.

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