nexo_entity_dossier

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It says 'full local dossier' suggesting local data aggregation, but it does not mention side effects, performance implications, or whether the operation is read-only. 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?

While one sentence is brief, it is under-specified for a tool with 5 parameters and no schema descriptions. Conciseness should not sacrifice necessary information; here it fails to provide any parameter guidance.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and complex parameters, the description is far from complete. It does not define what a dossier includes, how to interpret results, or how the parameters affect the output.

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 has 0% coverage (no parameter descriptions). The description only mentions 'aggregates and evidence' but does not explain any of the five parameters (query, max_assets, max_chunks, max_facts, max_chars). The agent cannot infer how to use these parameters.

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 'Build a full local dossier for one entity with aggregates and evidence' clearly states the action (build), resource (dossier), scope (one entity), and content (aggregates and evidence). It distinguishes from sibling tools like nexo_evidence_search or nexo_memory_search.

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 implies the tool is for compiling a comprehensive view of a single entity, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it provide prerequisites or scenarios. For a tool with many siblings, this is a clear gap.

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