nexo_task_open

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only mentions that ack_rules can acknowledge guards inline. It does not disclose other behavioral traits such as idempotency, side effects (e.g., whether opening a task modifies state), required permissions, or error handling.

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 concise, with two sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides useful detail on ack_rules. It is front-loaded but could be improved by adding more critical information without increasing length significantly.

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's complexity (16 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain most parameters, the return value, or how to use the tool effectively. It is far from adequate for an agent to invoke correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the format of the ack_rules parameter in detail but does not describe the other 15 parameters (sid, area, goal, etc.). The explanation for ack_rules is helpful but insufficient for the overall parameter set.

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 states 'Open a protocol task for non-trivial work', which clearly indicates the action (open) and resource (protocol task). It distinguishes from siblings like nexo_goal_open and nexo_workflow_open by specifying 'protocol task', but does not explicitly contrast them.

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 hints at usage by noting that ack_rules can acknowledge guards inline, avoiding a separate nexo_task_acknowledge_guard call. However, it does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like nexo_task_close or others, nor does it state when not to use it.

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