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. It states it's a search operation, implying it's read-only, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what the search algorithm entails (e.g., fuzzy matching). The mention of 'ALL NEXO memory' hints at broad scope but lacks operational details.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Search across ALL NEXO memory') and lists resource types without unnecessary elaboration. Every word contributes to defining scope, with zero waste or redundancy.

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 complexity (search across multiple memory types), lack of annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain parameters, behavioral constraints, or output format. However, an output schema exists, which may cover return values, partially mitigating the need for description details. The description alone is insufficient for full understanding.

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 schema provides no parameter descriptions. The tool description adds no information about the two parameters (query and days) beyond what's inferred from their names. It doesn't explain what 'query' should contain (e.g., keywords, natural language) or what 'days' affects (e.g., recency filtering), failing to compensate 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 across ALL NEXO memory' with specific resource types listed (changes, decisions, learnings, etc.). It uses a specific verb ('Search') and identifies the scope ('ALL NEXO memory'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling search tools like nexo_change_search or nexo_learning_search, which appear to target specific subsets.

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. With many sibling tools that perform specific searches (e.g., nexo_change_search, nexo_learning_search, nexo_decision_search), there's no indication of when this comprehensive search is preferred over targeted ones, nor any prerequisites or exclusions mentioned.

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