NEXO Brain

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'check' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires authentication, what the output format is, if there are rate limits, or how results are presented. The description is minimal and leaves critical behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences: one stating the purpose and another explaining the parameter. It's front-loaded with the main purpose. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured with bullet points for the filter options.

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 has an output schema (which handles return values), the description's main job is to explain purpose and parameters. It covers the single parameter well but lacks behavioral context (no annotations) and usage guidance. For a simple read tool with output schema, this is minimally adequate but has clear gaps in transparency and guidelines.

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 by explaining the 'filter' parameter with three specific options ('due', 'all', 'followups') and their meanings. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema. With only one parameter fully documented in the description, this earns a high score despite 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 states 'Check reminders and followups' which provides a basic purpose (verb+resource). However, it's vague about what 'check' entails (list? view details? get status?) and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'nexo_reminder_complete' or 'nexo_followup_create'. It's better than a tautology but lacks specificity.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'nexo_reminder_create' or 'nexo_followup_complete'. The description only explains the filter parameter options but doesn't provide context about appropriate use cases or prerequisites for checking reminders/followups.

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