nexo_workflow_compensation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. The description implies a read-only operation ('show'), but does not explicitly state whether it has side effects, requires authorization, or what happens when called on a non-partial run. The minimal text is acceptable for a simple view tool but lacks depth.

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, very concise with no filler. It front-loads the purpose. However, it could include parameter hints without becoming verbose.

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, the description should at least indicate the format or content of the plan (e.g., list of steps, JSON). It also lacks sibling differentiation and parameter context. For a tool with two parameters, it is underspecified.

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 has 2 parameters (run_id, checkpoint_limit) with 0% description coverage. The description does not mention either parameter, leaving the user to guess what 'checkpoint_limit' means or how 'run_id' is used. This is a critical gap.

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 shows the rollback/compensation plan for a partially completed workflow run. The verb 'show' and specific resource 'rollback/compensation plan' is unambiguous and distinguishes from sibling tools like nexo_workflow_get and nexo_workflow_replay.

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, such as when a partial failure occurs or when to consult other workflow tools. No explicit use cases or exclusions are mentioned.

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