nexo_followup_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses that the tool returns a READ_TOKEN essential for subsequent mutations, and hints at the response content (history, usage rules). However, it does not explicitly state the read-only nature or the format of the token, leaving minor 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 consists of two concise sentences. The first establishes purpose, and the second provides a critical usage instruction. No extraneous information, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 read tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality and a crucial workflow dependency. It lacks details about what constitutes a valid 'id' or what 'followup' means, but in context of sibling tools, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use correctly.

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 'id' with no description (0% coverage). The tool description does not elaborate on what 'id' represents, its format, or constraints. Given the low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, providing minimal parameter-level value.

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 'Read a followup with its history and usage rules,' providing a specific verb (Read) and resource (followup). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like nexo_followup_create, update, and delete, which are mutation operations.

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 explicitly instructs the agent to call this tool before update/delete/restore/note operations and to use the returned READ_TOKEN. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, with no ambiguity.

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