NEXO Brain

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'triggers rehearsal on retrieved results' which adds some behavioral context beyond basic functionality, but doesn't address important aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, how results are formatted, or what 'rehearsal' entails in practice.

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 at just two sentences with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and adds a behavioral note efficiently. Every word earns its place in this minimal description.

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 (RAG query with 6 parameters) and the presence of an output schema (which reduces need to describe return values), the description provides basic functional context but lacks parameter guidance and behavioral details. It's minimally adequate for understanding what the tool does at a high level but insufficient for proper usage without additional documentation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 6 parameters (5 with defaults), the description provides no information about any parameters. It doesn't explain what 'top_k', 'min_score', 'stores', 'source_type', or 'domain' mean or how they affect the query. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of parameter documentation in the schema.

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 as performing a RAG query over cognitive memory (STM+LTM) and mentions it triggers rehearsal on retrieved results. This provides a specific verb ('RAG query') and resource ('cognitive memory'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'nexo_recall' or 'nexo_cognitive_inspect' which might have similar retrieval functions.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like 'nexo_recall', 'nexo_cognitive_inspect', and 'nexo_answer', there's no indication of what makes this tool unique or when it should be preferred over other retrieval or query tools in the system.

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