NEXO Brain

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool 'shows' history, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify permissions, rate limits, pagination, or what the output looks like. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 appropriately concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose clearly, followed by a brief parameter explanation. There's no wasted text, and the structure (purpose then args) is logical and easy to parse.

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 that there's an output schema (which handles return values), the description covers the purpose and parameters adequately. However, for a tool with no annotations and multiple sibling tools, it lacks context on usage differentiation and behavioral details like permissions or output format. It's minimally viable but has clear gaps.

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 description adds meaningful context for both parameters: 'task_num' is explained as 'Filter by task number (optional)' and 'days' as 'How many days back to show (default 30).' This compensates well for the 0% schema description coverage, providing clear semantics beyond the bare schema. Since there are only 2 parameters, this is sufficient.

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: 'Show execution history for operational tasks.' This specifies the verb ('Show') and resource ('execution history for operational tasks'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'nexo_task_log' or 'nexo_task_frequency', which might have overlapping functionality.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'nexo_task_log' and 'nexo_task_frequency' present, there's no indication of how this tool differs or when it should be preferred. The description only explains what the tool does, not when to use it.

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