nexo_context_router

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects, permissions, rate limits, or whether the tool is read-only. For a retrieval tool, at minimum a note that it does not modify state would be expected.

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 that efficiently conveys the tool's core purpose without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the key action and target, making it quick for an agent to parse.

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 absence of an output schema and the presence of many sibling context tools, the description should clarify what 'compact local context evidence' means and how the output differs from similar tools. It does not explain the return format or integration with 'injection before a reply', leaving significant 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 5 parameters (query, intent, limit, current_context, max_chars) with 0% schema description coverage. The description adds no information about any parameter, failing to explain their meaning or how they affect behavior. The defaults and types in the schema provide basic insight but are insufficient.

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 verb 'return', the resource 'compact local context evidence', and the purpose 'suitable for injection before a reply'. This distinguishes it from sibling context tools like nexo_local_context and nexo_recent_context by emphasizing compactness and reply injection.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its many siblings (e.g., nexo_context_packet, nexo_local_context). The phrase 'suitable for injection before a reply' implies a specific use case, but no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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