nexo_learning_quality

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, destructive, or requires special permissions. The phrase 'score' implies evaluation, but no behavioral traits (e.g., no side effects, rate limits) are revealed.

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, front-loaded sentence with no waste. It efficiently conveys the core action and motivation without extraneous 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?

The tool has no output schema and 4 optional parameters. The description does not explain the output format, scoring criteria, or how the scoring process works. Key information about what the agent can expect as a result is missing, making it incomplete for effective invocation.

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?

All four parameters (id, category, status, limit) are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage). The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the action ('Score') and the resource ('learning quality'), distinguishing this tool from sibling tools like nexo_learning_add, nexo_learning_list, etc. While the purpose is clear, it could be more specific about what constitutes 'scoring' and how it differs from other quality-related tools.

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 a vague motivational context ('so fragile rules can be strengthened') but does not give explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No when-not-to or alternative tools are mentioned, leaving the agent without clear decision criteria.

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