nexo_evidence_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It states 'search' but does not clarify if it is read-only, what it returns (e.g., list of IDs, full records), or any limitations like pagination or rate limits. This lack of detail reduces transparency.

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 sentence, concise and direct. It front-loads the key action and scope. However, it lacks structural elements like bullet points or sections that could improve readability.

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 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not address the return format, parameter usage, how results are ordered, or how it compares to similar sibling tools. This leaves significant gaps for an agent.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. However, it does not explain any parameters (e.g., query, limit, task_id). The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory but without additional context, the description adds little meaning beyond the schema.

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 it searches for concrete evidence across multiple named stores (tasks, workflows, change logs, diaries, continuity stores). It distinguishes from siblings like nexo_memory_search and nexo_evidence_record by implying a cross-store 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 usage for searching evidence across several stores but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternative search tools like nexo_memory_search or nexo_transcript_search. No when-not or exclusion criteria provided.

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