nexo_decision_log

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action (log) without mentioning side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens to logged data. The write nature is implicit but not explicit.

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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose. However, it could be structured with bullet points or additional context without becoming verbose.

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 tool has 8 parameters (2 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It lacks details on return values, expected behavior, or examples, leaving the agent with insufficient context for proper 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 description coverage is high (88%), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond listing 'reasoning, alternatives, and evidence', which corresponds to parameters like 'alternatives' and 'based_on'. The schema already describes each 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 'Log a non-trivial decision with reasoning, alternatives, and evidence' clearly indicates the action (log) and resource (non-trivial decision). It distinguishes from siblings like nexo_decision_outcome by specifying content (reasoning, alternatives, evidence), but the term 'non-trivial' is ambiguous and could be more precise.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as nexo_decision_outcome or nexo_decision_search. No criteria for 'non-trivial' or context for its use relative to other decision-logging tools is given.

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