nexo_goal_engine_status

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavior. It indicates a read-only report of readiness and lists what is covered, but does not detail side effects, authentication, or performance impact. The description is adequate but not rigorous.

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, clear sentence of 12 words. It is concise and front-loaded with the purpose, but could be slightly more structured (e.g., listing items or using bullets).

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose and the four reported aspects, but given the absence of an output schema, it does not specify the return format or completeness. It is sufficient for a simple status tool but lacks depth for complex scenarios.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the input schema is empty. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, which is acceptable given the lack of parameters.

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 uses the verb 'Report' and specifies 'Goal Engine telemetry readiness', listing four concrete aspects (outcomes, cortex history, linked decisions, active profiles). This clearly indicates the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from sibling goal, cortex, and decision tools.

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 using this tool to check telemetry readiness, but does not explicitly state when to use it vs. alternatives (e.g., nexo_goal_list, nexo_cortex_stats). No exclusion criteria or usage context is provided.

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