nexo_evolution_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It does not state that the tool is read-only, has no side effects, or any authorization requirements. The verb 'show' implies a read operation, but this is only implied without explicit safety guarantees.

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, focused sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently communicates the tool's function.

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?

For a simple status tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details on the format or range of scores (e.g., numeric values, percentages), which might be needed for an agent to interpret results. No export or additional context is provided.

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?

There are no parameters (0), so baseline is 4. The description adds value by listing the specific dimensions returned, which helps the agent understand what data to expect.

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 shows current NEXO dimension scores and lists five specific dimensions (episodic memory, autonomy, proactivity, self-improvement, AGI). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like nexo_evolution_history (historical) or nexo_evolution_propose (proposing changes).

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 querying current scores but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like nexo_evolution_history. There is no mention of when not to use it or fallback tools.

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