nexo_track

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains conflict detection and the prerequisite call. However, it does not describe the return value, error handling, or exact side effects (e.g., locking).

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 (three sentences plus args), front-loaded with purpose, and every sentence adds value. The 'MUST' directive emphasizes importance without extra wording.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description lacks details about the return value (e.g., conflict info, success confirmation) and does not clarify batch behavior or error states, leaving the agent partially uninformed.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining 'sid: Your session ID' and 'paths: List of absolute file paths to track,' adding crucial context beyond the bare 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: 'Track files being edited' and 'Detects conflicts with other sessions.' It uses a specific verb-resource pair and distinguishes from sibling tools like nexo_untrack by focusing on tracking before editing.

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 explicitly states when to use: 'MUST call before editing any shared file.' This provides clear context for use but does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives beyond the implied opposite (nexo_untrack).

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