nexo_session_log_create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool 'opens' a row and returns a session_id, indicating creation. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, idempotency, error behaviors, or what happens on duplicate calls. This is adequate but lacks depth.

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 paragraph with a clear front-loaded statement of purpose, followed by contextual details and a specific usage sequence. Every sentence contributes value, and there is no redundancy or unnecessary information.

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?

The description explains the purpose, context, and required sequence of calls (open, store id, close). It references the paired tool nexo_session_log_close. It does not detail the return format beyond 'session_id', but given no output schema, this is sufficient. It could be improved by mentioning behavior on duplicate calls or error conditions, but it is mostly 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents each parameter well. The description itself does not add any additional semantics or usage notes for the parameters beyond stating that the session_id is returned. Thus, 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 clearly states that the tool opens an automation_runs row for an interactive Claude/Codex session. It specifies the use case for direct spawning (e.g., NEXO Desktop) and distinguishes it from the alternative run_automation_prompt, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly instructs to call this BEFORE spawning the child, store the returned session_id, and call nexo_session_log_close when the session ends. It also provides context about when this tool is appropriate (direct spawning) and mentions the alternative path (run_automation_prompt).

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