nexo_context_packet

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the return type (context packet with specific components) and implies a read-only operation (building a packet). However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is non-destructive or side-effect-free, which would improve transparency.

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 (two sentences) and front-loaded with the action and return. Every sentence adds value—no filler. The imperative second sentence reinforces usage. Excellent 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?

Given no output schema, the description explains the return value (learnings, changes, etc.) adequately. It also provides strong context around mandatory usage. However, it could be more complete by mentioning that the tool is a read operation and perhaps hinting at the expected impact.

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 covers 100% of parameters (area required, files optional). The description mentions the files parameter as 'Optional comma-separated file paths for additional context' in the schema, but the description text does not add new meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 builds a context packet for subagent injection and lists the specific components returned (learnings, changes, followups, preferences, cognitive memories). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like nexo_recent_context by specifying its mandatory use before subagent delegation.

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 explicitly states 'MUST call before delegating ANY task to a subagent' and 'Inject the result into the subagent's prompt', giving precise when and how to use the tool. This provides excellent usage guidance.

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