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 mentions logging ('Also logs for tracking'), which adds some context about side effects. However, it doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'tone guidance' entails. The description is insufficient for a mutation-prone tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 and front-loaded, stating the core purpose in the first clause. The second clause about logging adds relevant information without redundancy. However, the structure could be slightly improved by integrating the logging detail more seamlessly, but it remains efficient with zero wasted sentences.

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 (sentiment analysis with logging), no annotations, and an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values), the description is partially complete. It covers the main action and a side effect but lacks details on behavioral traits, parameter usage, and differentiation from siblings. It's adequate but has clear gaps.

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?

The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema provides no semantic details. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond implying the 'text' parameter is analyzed for sentiment. It doesn't explain format, length constraints, or examples. With low schema coverage, the description compensates minimally, warranting a baseline score.

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 user sentiment and get tone guidance.' It specifies the verb ('detect') and resource ('user sentiment'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'nexo_cognitive_dissonance' or 'nexo_cognitive_metrics' by focusing on sentiment analysis. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all cognitive tools, keeping it at a 4 rather than a 5.

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. It mentions logging ('Also logs for tracking'), but doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or compare it to other sentiment-related tools. This lack of contextual usage information results in a low score.

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