NEXO Brain

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it indicates this is a search operation (implying read-only behavior), it doesn't address critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, error conditions, or what constitutes a 'past decision' in this system. The description is too minimal for a tool with 3 parameters.

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 extremely concise - just one sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes a helpful example. Every element earns its place, making it efficient despite being under-specified.

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 that there's an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values), but with 3 undocumented parameters and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It establishes the basic purpose but doesn't provide enough context for an agent to use the tool effectively without additional trial and error.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 3 parameters, the description provides no information about what 'query', 'domain', or 'days' mean or how they should be used. The description doesn't compensate for the complete lack of parameter documentation in the schema, leaving the agent guessing about parameter purposes and relationships.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('past decisions'), and provides a helpful example of the type of question it answers ('why did we do X?'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'nexo_decision_log' or 'nexo_decision_outcome', which prevents a perfect score.

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. There's no mention of when this search tool is appropriate compared to other decision-related tools (like 'nexo_decision_log' or 'nexo_decision_outcome'), nor any prerequisites or exclusions for its use.

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