nexo_cognitive_dissonance

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It only mentions 'force=True to skip discussion' but omits default behavior (force=False) and what the tool returns. The schema provides more detail on force, but the description alone is insufficient.

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 (one sentence plus a brief note) and front-loaded with the main purpose. It could be slightly more structured but is efficient without wasted words.

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 detects cognitive conflicts, a complex operation, but the description fails to explain output, return format, or default behavior. Without an output schema, more context is needed for an agent to understand the tool's full 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no new meaning beyond the schema; it repeats 'force=True to skip discussion' which is already in the parameter description. No additional context for the instruction parameter.

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.' The verb 'detect' and resource 'conflicts between instruction and LTM' are specific. Among siblings like nexo_cognitive_resolve, it distinguishes as the detection tool.

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 use for detecting conflicts but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like nexo_cognitive_resolve. It hints at the force parameter for skipping discussion but lacks when-not guidance.

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