NEXO Brain

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden but fails to disclose behavioral traits. It doesn't indicate if this is a read-only or destructive operation, what permissions are needed, how it affects data, or any rate limits. The phrase 'resolve' suggests a mutation, but without confirmation, leaving the agent uncertain about side effects.

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 brief (one sentence) and front-loaded with the core action, but it's overly terse and under-specified. Every word earns its place, yet it lacks necessary detail, making it inefficient rather than concise. Structure is simple but incomplete for the tool's complexity.

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 (resolving cognitive dissonance with 3 parameters), no annotations, 0% schema coverage, but an output schema exists, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the resolution process, input expectations, or behavioral impact, relying too heavily on the output schema for return values without covering usage context.

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 but adds no parameter semantics. It doesn't explain what 'memory_id', 'resolution', or 'context' mean, their formats, or how they interact. The mention of resolution types (paradigm_shift, etc.) hints at possible values but isn't linked to parameters, failing to bridge the gap.

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 states the tool's purpose is to 'Resolve a cognitive dissonance' but only vaguely lists types (paradigm_shift, exception, or override) without explaining what resolution entails or what resource it acts upon. It distinguishes from sibling 'nexo_cognitive_dissonance' (likely for detection) but not from other cognitive tools like 'nexo_cognitive_inspect' or 'nexo_cognitive_retrieve', leaving the specific action unclear.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description implies it's for resolving cognitive dissonance but doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., after detection with 'nexo_cognitive_dissonance'), exclusions, or comparisons to other resolution methods. Usage is implied by the tool name alone, lacking actionable context.

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