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 mentions the search scope ('title and content'), which is useful, but lacks critical details such as whether this is a read-only operation, how results are returned (e.g., pagination, sorting), error conditions, or performance characteristics. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by a brief parameter explanation. There's minimal waste, though the structure could be slightly improved by integrating parameter details more seamlessly. Overall, it's efficient but not exemplary.

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 moderate complexity (search function with 2 parameters), no annotations, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks usage context, behavioral details, and deeper parameter semantics. It meets the bare minimum but leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.

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%, meaning parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description adds basic semantics: 'query: Search term' and 'category: Filter by category (optional)'. This clarifies the purpose of both parameters, but it doesn't provide format details (e.g., query syntax, category values) or examples. It compensates partially but not fully for the schema 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: 'Search learnings by keyword. Searches title and content.' This specifies the verb ('Search'), resource ('learnings'), and scope ('title and content'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'nexo_learning_list' or 'nexo_entity_search', 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. There are multiple search-related sibling tools (e.g., 'nexo_learning_list', 'nexo_entity_search', 'nexo_change_search'), but the description offers no context for choosing this specific search tool over others, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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