nexo_cognitive_resolve

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits (e.g., side effects, state changes). It only lists resolution options without explaining what happens to the memory or system—whether the resolution is permanent, reverts, or triggers other actions. This is insufficient for safe agent invocation.

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 a single sentence with no extraneous words. It front-loads the core function and resolution types. However, it could include more context without becoming verbose, so not a perfect 5.

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 no output schema and the tool's complexity (cognitive resolution), the description lacks important details: return values, side effects, prerequisites (e.g., memory_id must exist), and how each resolution changes state. The sibling tool nexo_cognitive_dissonance is the counterpart, but resolution behavior is underspecified.

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?

All three parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage). The description reiterates the resolution options and 'optional context' but adds no deeper semantics (e.g., constraints, format, or usage examples). Baseline applies as schema already documents the parameters.

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 explicitly states the verb 'resolve' and the resource 'cognitive dissonance', listing the three resolution types (paradigm_shift, exception, override). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like nexo_cognitive_dissonance (detection), making its purpose unambiguous.

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 after detecting dissonance (requires memory_id), but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives (e.g., nexo_cognitive_quarantine_process). No exclusion criteria or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer the context.

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