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. It states this is a 'Get' operation, implying it's likely read-only, but doesn't confirm safety aspects like whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, or what happens on failure. The description lacks behavioral details beyond the basic 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 that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part ('Get guard system statistics: repetition rate, trends, top problem areas') directly contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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's low complexity (one optional parameter), no annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It clearly states what statistics are retrieved, though it could benefit from more behavioral context or usage guidance to fully compensate for the lack of annotations.

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 input schema has one parameter ('period_days') with 0% description coverage, and the tool description doesn't mention parameters at all. However, since there's only one parameter and an output schema exists, the baseline is 3—the description doesn't add value but the minimal parameter count and output schema mitigate the gap.

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 with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('guard system statistics'), and lists the types of statistics returned (repetition rate, trends, top problem areas). It distinguishes from most siblings by focusing on guard system stats, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'nexo_guard_log_repetition' which might overlap.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or compare it to sibling tools like 'nexo_guard_log_repetition' or 'nexo_cognitive_stats', leaving the agent to infer usage based on the name alone.

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