nexo_outcome_pattern_candidates

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral traits. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or how it handles edge cases (e.g., no patterns found). The description 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, which is concise, but it sacrifices necessary detail. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose, but lacks parameter explanations and usage context.

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 presence of two parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to clarify the meaning of min_resolved and limit, or what information the response contains, leaving significant gaps for the 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?

The input schema has two parameters (min_resolved, limit) with 0% description coverage, yet the description does not mention or explain either parameter. Without additional context, an AI agent cannot determine how to set these parameters appropriately.

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 action ('List') and the resource ('repeated resolved outcome patterns from cortex-linked decisions'), and the qualifier 'consistent enough to become reusable knowledge' distinguishes this from sibling tools that list outcomes directly (e.g., nexo_outcome_list) or capture patterns.

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 like nexo_outcome_list or nexo_outcome_check. The description implies it is for discovering reusable patterns, but lacks context about prerequisites 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.