NEXO Brain

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and adds valuable behavioral context: it explains that completed recurring followups are archived with date suffixes and new ones auto-created, and clarifies the autonomous task nature. However, it lacks details on permissions, error handling, or rate limits.

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 well-structured with a clear opening statement followed by a parameter breakdown. Every sentence adds value, though the recurrence explanation is slightly dense. It's appropriately sized for a tool with multiple parameters and complex behavior.

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 6 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description does an excellent job explaining parameter semantics and key behaviors like recurrence handling. The presence of an output schema means return values don't need explanation. Minor gaps remain in error cases or authentication needs.

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 fully compensates by providing clear semantics for all 6 parameters: it explains ID format, describes each field's purpose, lists optional parameters, and gives specific examples for recurrence formats. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare 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 the specific action ('Create a new NEXO followup') and resource ('autonomous task'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like nexo_followup_complete, nexo_followup_delete, and nexo_followup_update. It uses a precise verb and specifies the type of entity being created.

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 creating autonomous tasks with optional recurrence, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like nexo_reminder_create or other followup tools. It provides some context about auto-regeneration but lacks explicit guidance on prerequisites or exclusions.

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