nexo_followup_lifecycle

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the tool is read-only, destructive, or how it handles pagination or limits. It only states what it returns, lacking important context for safe invocation.

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 short sentence, which is concise but lacks structure. It could benefit from additional sentences to provide context and parameter details without being overly verbose.

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 complexity (1 optional param, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'lifecycle lane' means or how the grouping is structured, missing critical context for proper tool usage.

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 schema has 0% parameter description coverage, and the tool description does not explain the 'limit' parameter. The description adds no value beyond the schema, leaving the agent without guidance on how to use the parameter effectively.

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 it returns followups grouped by lifecycle lane, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling followup tools like nexo_followup_get or nexo_followup_complete, and the phrase 'for runner, dashboard and startup parity' is vague, reducing clarity slightly.

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 given on when to use this tool versus other followup tools. The phrase 'for runner, dashboard and startup parity' hints at use cases but is not explicit, and there is no mention of when not to use or alternative tools.

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