nexo_recent_context

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

The description only says 'read', which implies idempotence, but there are no annotations to confirm. It does not disclose side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens if no data is available. For a tool with zero annotations, this is insufficient.

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 that clearly states the purpose. It is concise and front-loaded with the essential action and resource.

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 4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is too brief. It fails to explain what 'hot context' and 'continuity events' are, how the parameters interact, or what the output looks like.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameters. It only implies the meaning of 'hours' (time window) but does not explain 'query', 'context_key', or 'limit'. The description partially compensates for 'hours' but leaves major gaps.

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 reads recent hot context and continuity events, which specifies the verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like nexo_hot_context_list (which likely only lists hot context) and nexo_continuity_* tools by combining both in a single read operation.

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 such as nexo_hot_context_list, nexo_recall, or nexo_context_packet. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or appropriate contexts.

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