nexo_session_compliance_state

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation but does not disclose side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. The term 'brain-verifiable' is ambiguous without further explanation.

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, which is concise, but the jargon 'brain-verifiable' may confuse, and the structure front-loads all information adequately.

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?

No output schema, no annotations, and minimal parameter explanation. For a tool returning compliance state, an agent needs to know what the output looks like and how parameters influence it. The current description is insufficient for reliable invocation.

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%. The description does not explain the 'sid' parameter (session ID?) or how 'diary_window_minutes' affects the returned state. This leaves the agent guessing despite having default values.

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 uses a specific verb 'Return' and identifies the resource as 'brain-verifiable heartbeat, diary, learning, and close compliance state'. This clearly states the tool's output and scope, distinguishing it from sibling tools that don't mention compliance state.

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 the many sibling tools (e.g., nexo_session_diary_read, nexo_heartbeat). No exclusions, prerequisites, or context for appropriate invocation are provided.

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