nexo_guard_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states 'check learnings', implying a read-only operation, but does not reveal potential side effects, permissions needed, or rate limits. Some behavioral context is provided by the 'BEFORE editing code' emphasis, but it lacks depth.

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 sentence that is direct and front-loaded with the key purpose. It is concise but could benefit from slightly more detail without being verbose, such as indicating what the output might be.

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 tool has 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the check returns, how to interpret results, or any prerequisites. As a guard check, more context is needed for effective use.

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 75%, with 3 out of 4 parameters described. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, e.g., it mentions 'files/area' but doesn't clarify the role of project_hint or include_schemas. Baseline score is appropriate given high coverage.

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 checks learnings relevant to files/area before editing code, specifying the action and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling guard check tools like nexo_guard_cross_check or nexo_guard_file_check, which may have overlapping purposes.

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 to call this before any code change, providing clear usage context. It does not mention when not to use or alternatives, but the directive is strong enough for an agent to infer appropriate usage.

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