nexo_confidence_check

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavior. It lists four possible decisions but does not explain the decision criteria, side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens after the decision (e.g., does the tool take action or just return a recommendation?). The term 'non-trivial' is vague.

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 17-word sentence, which is efficient but slightly dense with a list of four options. It is front-loaded with the action verb but could be clearer with better structure.

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?

For a tool with 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It omits what the tool returns (the decision?), how to interpret the outcome, and the meaning of 'non-trivial'. This leaves an agent underinformed for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 0% and the description does not elaborate on any of the 9 parameters (goal, task_type, area, etc.). Parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory but the description adds no semantic value beyond the schema's JSON structure.

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 uses a specific verb 'Decide' and resource 'non-trivial answer' with four clear outcomes: answered, verified, asked, deferred. It distinguishes the tool as a confidence gate from siblings like nexo_answer, nexo_ask, and nexo_verify.

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 phrase 'before replying' implies a temporal context but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like nexo_cortex_decide. No when-not-to-use or exclusions are provided.

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