NEXO Brain

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions the action ('Mark as COMPLETADO') and effect ('Appends result to verification field'), but doesn't disclose critical behaviors like whether this is a mutation, if it requires specific permissions, what happens on failure, or if it's idempotent. It adds some context but leaves significant gaps.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by parameter explanations. It's brief and efficient, with no wasted sentences, though the structure could be slightly improved by integrating parameter details more seamlessly.

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 has an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values), no annotations, and low schema coverage, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral details like error handling or side effects, making it adequate but with clear gaps for a mutation tool.

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. It explains both parameters: 'id' as 'Followup ID (e.g., NF45)' and 'result' as 'What was found/done (optional)', adding meaningful context beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't detail format constraints or examples beyond the ID example.

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 ('Mark a followup as COMPLETADO') and the resource ('followup'), with the additional detail about appending to the verification field. It distinguishes from siblings like 'nexo_followup_create' and 'nexo_followup_update' by focusing on completion, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'nexo_followup_update' or 'nexo_reminder_complete'. The description implies it's for marking followups as completed, but lacks context on prerequisites, timing, or exclusions.

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