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 states the tool is for inspection and debug purposes and does not trigger rehearsal, implying it's a safe read operation. However, it doesn't cover critical aspects like permissions needed, rate limits, error handling, or what 'inspect' entails (e.g., returns detailed metadata vs. raw content). This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation support.

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—two short sentences with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently adds a key behavioral note ('Does NOT trigger rehearsal'). Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse 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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, but has an output schema), the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and a key behavioral constraint but lacks details on parameters, usage context, and behavioral traits. The output schema may help with return values, but the description doesn't reference it, leaving the agent to rely on structured data alone.

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 mentions 'memory_id' but doesn't explain its format or valid ranges. It omits the 'store' parameter entirely, leaving its purpose (default 'ltm') unexplained. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, failing to address the coverage gap adequately.

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: 'Inspect a specific memory by ID (debug).' It specifies the verb ('inspect'), resource ('memory'), and scope ('by ID'), and distinguishes it from potential siblings by noting 'Does NOT trigger rehearsal.' However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other memory-related tools like 'nexo_cognitive_retrieve' or 'nexo_memory_review_queue', which keeps it from 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 some implied usage context: it's for debugging and does not trigger rehearsal, suggesting it's a read-only inspection tool. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'nexo_cognitive_retrieve' or 'nexo_cognitive_metrics', and doesn't mention prerequisites or exclusions. This leaves gaps in practical application.

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