nexo_outcome_pattern_capture

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the basic action (capture pattern as learning) but omits side effects, idempotency, or what happens if the pattern already exists. The condition 'evidence is consistent' is vague.

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?

Single sentence is concise and action-oriented, front-loading the verb. However, it lacks structure such as separating preconditions or related tools.

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?

For a tool with 3 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not cover what constitutes a pattern, what the artifact format is, or success/failure conditions.

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 coverage is 0% with no parameter descriptions. The description only mentions 'currently a learning' aligning with the default 'target' but does not explain pattern_key or category, leaving the agent without needed context.

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 verb 'capture' and the resource 'one repeated outcome pattern as a reusable artifact (learning)', distinguishing it from sibling tools like nexo_outcome_list or nexo_outcome_check. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from nexo_learning_add, which might also add a learning.

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 alternatives like nexo_learning_add or nexo_outcome_pattern_candidates. The phrase 'once the evidence is consistent' hints at a precondition but lacks specificity.

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