nexo_guard_check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It only states 'Check learnings' without disclosing behavioral traits like whether it is read-only, side effects, required permissions, or what constitutes a check. Missing key information for a tool that acts as a guard.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no redundant information. Every word earns its place.

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 4 optional parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what 'learnings' are, what the return value is, or how the agent should interpret the result. Among many sibling guard tools, more detail is needed.

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 high (75%), so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds no new meaning beyond referencing 'files/area' which aligns with existing parameter descriptions. No added 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 the action ('Check learnings') and the context ('relevant to files/area BEFORE editing code'), establishing a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like nexo_guard_file_check.

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?

Explicitly says 'Call this before any code change', providing a strong usage directive. It does not mention when not to use or list alternatives, but the context is clear.

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