NEXO Brain

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the triggering action without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't mention whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, what permissions are needed, if it's asynchronous, or any rate limits. The description is minimal and lacks critical behavioral context for a tool that likely initiates a significant process.

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 that communicates the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the main action and includes the key constraint ('outside weekly schedule'). Every word earns its place with zero waste.

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 likely initiates an analysis process (implied by 'evolution analysis'), the description is somewhat complete with the triggering context. However, with no annotations and an output schema present (which isn't described), the description doesn't address what the tool returns or its behavioral implications. For a potentially significant operation among many siblings, more context about outcomes would be helpful.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it correctly doesn't mention any parameters. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since no parameter semantics are required.

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 ('manually trigger') and resource ('evolution analysis'), specifying it's done 'outside weekly schedule'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'nexo_evolution_status' or 'nexo_evolution_history' by focusing on triggering rather than checking status or history. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all evolution-related siblings.

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 context ('outside weekly schedule'), suggesting this tool is for ad-hoc triggering when the regular schedule isn't sufficient. It doesn't provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or name alternatives among siblings like 'nexo_evolution_approve' or 'nexo_evolution_reject', leaving some ambiguity about the workflow.

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