nexo_task_open

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'captured as one protocol contract' but does not explain what that entails, nor does it cover state changes, authentication needs, or side effects. The behavioral information is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 with 16 words, which is concise but arguably too brief for a complex tool. It includes key terms but lacks structure (e.g., bullet points or separate sentences for different aspects). It earns its place but could be more informative.

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 high parameter count (16), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what a 'non-trivial task' is, how the protocol contract works, or what the agent should expect. An agent would struggle to invoke this tool 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%, and the description adds no meaning for any of the 16 parameters. Even the required 'sid' is unexplained. The agent has no help understanding parameter purposes or expected values.

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 action (Open) and the resource (task), and adds specificity with 'non-trivial task' and the components heartbeat, guard, rules, and Cortex as a protocol contract. It distinguishes from sibling tools like nexo_task_close by indicating a creation or initiation action, though 'open' could be clearer (create vs. resume).

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like nexo_goal_open or nexo_workflow_open. The description implies it's for starting a task with specific protocol components, but lacks context for when this is appropriate.

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