nexo_send

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses 'fire-and-forget', indicating asynchronous behavior with no response expected. However, it omits details like idempotency, success confirmation, or error scenarios. The core behavior is conveyed but not comprehensively.

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 of 10 words, no redundancy, and front-loads the key information. Every word adds value. Excellent conciseness.

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 simple send tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It conveys the core purpose and behavioral trait, but lacks details on success indicators, error handling, or prerequisites like valid session IDs. Could be more complete.

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 100%, so parameters (from_sid, to_sid, text) are already documented. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the 'fire-and-forget' context. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies 'Send' (verb) a 'message' (resource) with 'fire-and-forget' nature, and clarifies target as 'another session or broadcast'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like nexo_answer or nexo_ask, which imply a reply expectation.

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 implies use for fire-and-forget messages, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., nexo_ask for questions expecting answers). No exclusions or context are provided.

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