NEXO Brain

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Detects conflicts with other sessions,' which is valuable behavioral context beyond basic functionality. However, it doesn't describe what happens when conflicts are detected, whether tracking is persistent, or any rate limits/authentication needs. It adds some context but leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 perfectly concise and well-structured: a purpose statement, a behavioral note, a mandatory usage guideline, and parameter explanations—all in three sentences with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and follows with essential details.

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 moderate complexity (tracking with conflict detection), no annotations, 0% schema coverage, but with an output schema present, the description does well. It covers purpose, usage rules, and parameter meanings. The output schema will handle return values, so the description doesn't need to explain those. The main gap is insufficient behavioral detail about conflict resolution.

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 must compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation. It provides clear semantics for both parameters: 'sid: Your session ID' and 'paths: List of absolute file paths to track.' This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema types. The only minor gap is not specifying format constraints for session IDs.

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 with specific verbs ('Track files being edited') and resource ('files'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying its unique conflict detection capability. It explicitly mentions the scope constraint ('outside ~/claude/'), making the purpose highly specific and differentiated.

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 explicit usage guidelines: 'MUST call before editing any file outside ~/claude/.' This gives clear when-to-use instructions and implies an alternative (editing files inside ~/claude/ doesn't require tracking). It also references a sibling tool (nexo_untrack) by context, providing implicit alternatives.

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