nexo_drive_act

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey all behavioral traits. It states it marks a signal with an outcome (implying mutation) but omits details about whether the operation is reversible, what permissions are needed, or any side effects. The minimal description leaves significant ambiguity.

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 exceptionally concise, consisting of two short sentences that front-load the action and context. Every word contributes value, with no redundant or unnecessary information.

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's simplicity (2 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description adequately covers purpose and usage context. However, it lacks information about return values, error conditions, or what happens to the signal post-call, leaving some gaps for an agent to infer.

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 covers both parameters with clear descriptions (signal_id and outcome), achieving 100% schema coverage. The description does not add any additional meaning or examples beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance understanding.

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 marks a drive signal as investigated with an outcome, and specifies it's called after NEXO has autonomously investigated a READY signal. It effectively conveys the primary action and context, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools 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 guidance on when to call the tool: 'after NEXO has autonomously investigated a READY signal.' This sets clear prerequisites and context, but it does not mention when not to use it or offer alternatives, which keeps it from a perfect score.

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