NEXO Brain

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'shows' information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify if it requires authentication, has rate limits, or details the format of outcomes. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior and constraints.

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, efficient sentence: 'Show past evolution cycles, proposals, and their outcomes.' It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no unnecessary words, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 handles return values), no annotations, and a simple input schema with one parameter, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on behavior, usage context, or parameter meaning. For a tool with output schema support, it meets basic needs but could be more informative to fully guide the 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?

The input schema has one parameter, 'limit,' with 0% schema description coverage, meaning the schema doesn't explain its purpose. The description doesn't mention any parameters, so it adds no semantic value beyond the schema. With only one parameter and no schema descriptions, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate for the coverage gap but the simplicity of the tool mitigates the impact.

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: 'Show past evolution cycles, proposals, and their outcomes.' It specifies the verb 'show' and the resources 'evolution cycles, proposals, and outcomes,' making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'nexo_evolution_status' or 'nexo_decision_log,' which might have overlapping functions, so it doesn't reach a score of 5.

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. With sibling tools such as 'nexo_evolution_status' and 'nexo_decision_log,' there's no indication of how this tool differs in context or when it should be preferred. This lack of comparative information leaves the agent without clear usage instructions.

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