nexo_outcome_check

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions marking status and optionally creating learning on miss, but fails to describe idempotency, permission requirements, or other side effects. The behavioral disclosure is minimal.

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 sentence with no wasted words, effectively summarizing the tool's core function in a compact form. It could benefit from structural elements like lists, but it achieves conciseness.

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 absence of output schema, annotations, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, parameter usage, or differentiate from similar outcome tools. An AI agent would likely have gaps in using this 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 0%, so the description should compensate. It vaguely references 'linked state or supplied evidence' but does not explain the 'id', 'actual_value', 'actual_value_text', or 'create_learning_on_miss' parameters. Meaning added is insufficient for a 4-parameter tool.

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 checks a tracked outcome and marks its status, using 'check' as verb and 'tracked outcome' as resource. It hints at usage with 'linked state or supplied evidence' but does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like nexo_outcome_register or nexo_outcome_list.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'now' implies immediate checking, but there is no discussion of prerequisites, exclusions, or when not to use it.

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