nexo_skill_outcome_review

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

No annotations are provided, so the description should disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'review' and 'sustained outcome evidence' but does not explain what the tool returns, whether it modifies state, how auto_apply affects behavior, or any side effects. This leaves significant gaps.

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 concise sentence, but it omits necessary details. It is front-loaded with the action, but brevity sacrifices clarity on parameters and behavior.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter documentation, the description should compensate. It fails to explain return values, how the review is conducted, or what 'sustained outcome evidence' means. The tool's complexity is not matched by the description.

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 two parameters (id and auto_apply) with zero description coverage. The tool description does not explain what 'id' refers to (skill ID? outcome ID?) or what 'auto_apply' does. No parameter-level guidance is provided, so the description adds no value over the schema.

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: to review a skill for promotion, deprioritization, or retirement based on outcome evidence. It uses a specific verb ('review') and resource ('skill'), and distinguishes from sibling tools that perform actions like promote or retire.

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 usage when evaluating a skill's future but does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like nexo_skill_promote or nexo_outcome_check. No when-not guidance or prerequisites are provided.

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