nexo_skill_compose_candidates

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

No annotations are present, so the description must convey behavioral traits. The verb 'list' suggests a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that the tool does not modify any state or create side effects. It also does not clarify whether the returned candidates are stored or only presented, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 that efficiently conveys the core functionality. It includes the algorithm reference ('Voyager-style detection') and a project milestone ('closes Fase 5 item 5'). While concise, the project reference may be cryptic for an AI without context, slightly reducing clarity. Otherwise, it is well-structured and front-loaded.

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 absence of an output schema, the description should ideally indicate the return format (e.g., list of skill pair objects with details). It does not. However, the three parameters are simple and well-defined in the schema, and the core logic is explained. The description is adequate but incomplete in describing what the agent can expect as output.

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?

All three parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage), with defaults and descriptions. The tool description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema already provides. According to guidelines, when schema coverage is high, the baseline is 3, and the description does not exceed that.

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 tool's purpose: 'list skill pairs that fired together in 3+ sessions with 60%+ joint success and could become a single composite'. It specifies the resource (skill pairs), the action (list), and the exact conditions for inclusion. This distinguishes it from related tools like nexo_skill_compose (which actually performs composition) and nexo_skill_merge (merging).

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 the tool is for detecting candidates for skill composition, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives such as nexo_skill_evolution_candidates or nexo_skill_outcome_review. No direct guidance on prerequisites or when not to use it is provided.

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