nexo_cortex_stats

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

No annotations exist, so the description must inform about behavioral traits. 'View' implies a read operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, nor does it mention any side effects, permissions required, or data freshness. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.

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 well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource. There is no extraneous information, but it could benefit from a slightly more structured format (e.g., listing the statistics).

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 simplicity of the tool (1 parameter, no output schema), the description covers the basic purpose but lacks completeness. It does not describe what the output looks like (structure, format) or any context on scope (e.g., global or per-agent). Additional details would help the agent understand the returned data.

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 schema provides 100% coverage with a description for the 'days' parameter. The tool description does not add any additional meaning about the parameter, such as what effect changing the period has on the statistics. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema covers the parameter adequately.

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 'View' and clearly identifies the resource 'Cortex activation statistics'. It lists the aspects covered: modes, task types, inhibition rate. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like nexo_cortex_quality or nexo_cortex_check, which have different 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 guidance provided on when to use this tool over alternatives. While the name and description imply it's for viewing stats, there is no mention of exclusions or comparison to sibling stats tools (e.g., nexo_cognitive_stats). The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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