nexo_local_index_control

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'control,' which implies mutating actions (e.g., clear_index, pause) but does not clarify side effects, permissions, or whether operations are reversible. The agent is left guessing about consequences.

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 very short, but it sacrifices informativeness for brevity. Every sentence should earn its place; this one sentence fails to provide necessary context. It is under-specified rather than concise.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the different actions (run_once, pause, resume, etc.) or their effects, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool 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 100%, so each parameter is already documented in the input schema. The description adds no extra semantic value beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate, as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Control the local memory index' uses a vague verb 'control' and does not specify what operations are possible or the resource being affected. It barely adds value over the tool name, and among sibling tools like nexo_local_index_status and nexo_local_index_purge, the purpose is unclear.

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 sibling tools such as nexo_local_index_status or nexo_local_index_purge. The description lacks context about prerequisites or appropriate scenarios.

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