NEXO Brain

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool logs a repetition but doesn't explain what 'logging' entails (e.g., whether it creates a record, updates a database, or triggers notifications), the permissions required, or any side effects. This is inadequate for a tool that likely performs a write operation.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded and directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse.

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 an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values), but no annotations and low parameter coverage, the description is moderately complete. It states the core action but lacks details on behavior, usage context, and parameter meanings, leaving gaps for an AI agent to infer correctly.

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 compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'new learning matches existing one', which hints at the relationship between 'new_learning_id' and 'original_learning_id', but doesn't explain the 'similarity' parameter or provide any format or constraint details. This adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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's purpose: 'Log a learning repetition (new learning matches existing one)'. It specifies the verb ('Log') and the resource ('learning repetition'), and explains what constitutes a repetition. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'nexo_guard_check' or 'nexo_guard_stats', which prevents a score of 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., after a similarity check), or exclusions. With many sibling tools present, this lack of differentiation is a significant gap.

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