nexo_guard_check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'check learnings' without indicating whether it modifies state, what the expected side effects are, or how results are presented. Minimal disclosure.

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?

A single sentence of 9 words is efficient and front-loaded, but risks being too terse for complex understanding. No unnecessary words, but structure could be improved with more detail.

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 two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is under-specified. It fails to explain what 'learnings' are, how the result is returned, or any constraints, leaving the agent with significant ambiguity.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It mentions 'files/area' loosely mapping to the two parameters, but does not define their format, allowed values, or behavior. The description adds some meaning but is insufficient.

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 tool checks learnings relevant to files or area, with a specific purpose of preparing for code reading/editing. It differentiates from siblings like nexo_cortex_check and nexo_checkpoint_read by focusing on 'learnings' and a pre-action context.

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 use before reading or editing code, but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives among the many nexo tools.

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