nexo_drive_act

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds behavioral context by indicating the tool is a follow-up to NEXO's autonomous investigation. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, required permissions, or what happens if called out of sequence (e.g., if the signal is not in READY state).

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 with two sentences: the first states the purpose, and the second provides usage context. Every sentence contributes meaning, and the information is front-loaded. No redundant or vague phrasing.

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 simple nature of the tool (recording an outcome) and the rich schema, the description is largely complete. It explains when to use the tool and what it does. It could potentially mention that the signal must be in 'READY' state or that the outcome string format is free-form, but overall it's sufficient for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 100% description coverage, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('Signal ID that was investigated' and 'What was found during investigation'). The description adds no further semantic value beyond what the schema already provides. With high coverage, the baseline score of 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 action ('Mark a drive signal as investigated') and the resource ('drive signal') with a verb+resource structure. It also distinguishes itself by specifying the context: 'Call this after NEXO has autonomously investigated a READY signal,' which differentiates it from siblings like nexo_drive_dismiss or nexo_drive_reinforce.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call this after NEXO has autonomously investigated a READY signal.' It implies that this tool should not be called before investigation or for non-READY signals. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it.

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