NEXO Brain

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions creation but doesn't specify permissions needed, whether duplicates are allowed, error handling, or what the output contains. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a structured parameter list. Each sentence adds value, with no redundant information. It could be slightly more concise by integrating the parameter details more seamlessly, but it's well-organized.

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 that there's an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and low schema coverage, the description does an adequate job. It covers the purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral details like error cases or side effects, making it minimally viable but incomplete for full transparency.

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%, but the description compensates well by explaining all parameters: 'id' format (unique ID starting with 'R'), 'description' purpose, 'date' format and optionality, and 'category' options. It adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't cover defaults or constraints exhaustively.

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 ('Create a new reminder') and the target ('for the user'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'nexo_reminder_update' or 'nexo_reminder_delete', which would require explicit comparison to achieve a score of 5.

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_reminder_update' or 'nexo_reminders'. The description only states what it does, without context about prerequisites, timing, or comparisons to sibling tools.

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