nexo_task_close

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions auto-recording and opening debt as side effects, but lacks details on destruction, authentication needs, rate limits, or other important behavioral aspects.

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, avoiding waste. However, given the tool's complexity, it could be structured better to convey multiple aspects without becoming verbose.

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 tool has 26 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely lacking. It does not explain how to use the numerous optional parameters (evidence, followup, learning, etc.), making it incomplete for effective tool 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?

With 26 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description adds no meaning beyond the overall purpose. It does not explain any parameter purpose, defaults, or interactions, leaving the agent without sufficient guidance.

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 closes a protocol task and auto-records evidence, change-log, followup artifacts, and opens protocol debt when discipline is missing. It uses specific verbs and resources, distinguishing it from sibling tools.

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 closing tasks, but provides no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. No explicit usage context or exclusions are given.

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