nexo_confidence_check

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only states the decision function, without revealing side effects, state changes, or calling conventions. The agent cannot infer whether this is a read-only check or if it triggers actions.

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, making it concise. However, it is too terse for a tool with 9 parameters and a critical decision function. It would benefit from elaboration on key aspects, such as expected input structure and output behavior.

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 complexity (9 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It does not cover what the decision implies, how parameters influence the outcome, or what the response contains. The agent lacks sufficient context to use the tool effectively.

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%, yet the description provides no explanation for any of the 9 parameters. The required 'goal' parameter and others like 'task_type', 'constraints', 'stakes' are left entirely unexplained, forcing the agent to guess their semantics and format.

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: to decide whether an answer should proceed directly or be verified first. It specifies a verb ('decide') and a resource ('answer verification'). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like nexo_guard_check or nexo_check_answer, which may have overlapping purposes.

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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or contextual cues. This leaves the agent without guidance on appropriate invocation.

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