Nexus exhibits significant definition quality gaps. Tool descriptions vary widely in quality, some are detailed (handle_request at 180+ chars) while others are minimal (health, stats at <30 chars). Parameter schemas are present but inconsistent: route_request and send_nexus_request have well-typed inputs with enums and defaults, but many tools lack parameter descriptions entirely (agent_health, get_async_task_status, handle_echo, handle_text_analysis). No tool declares output schemas, forcing LLMs to infer response structure. Error handling guidance is absent across all tools. Tool naming follows verb_noun convention (good), but composition issues exist: handle_request and handle_request_async duplicate logic; send_nexus_request and handle_nexus_request are confusingly similar. Security concerns: no evidence of permission gates, audit trails, or secret injection patterns despite tools performing WRITE operations.

• Document output schemas for all 12 tools. Include field names, types, and descriptions. Example: route_request should return {agents: [{id, name, cost, latency}], selected_agent: {id, name}}.
• Expand descriptions for health and stats to 50 - 150 chars explaining their purpose. E.g., 'health: Returns server status and circuit breaker state for all registered agents. Use to verify Nexus availability before routing requests.'
• Add parameter descriptions to agent_health (explain what agent_id does), get_async_task_status (explain task_id format), handle_echo, and handle_text_analysis. Every param needs a 20 - 100 char description.
• Rename handle_nexus_request to receive_nexus_request and clarify send_nexus_request as 'Send a request to another agent via Nexus protocol.' Add descriptions explaining when to use each.
• Add error handling guidance to WRITE tools. E.g., handle_request: 'Returns {status, request_id, errors}. If policy_violation error, check policy rules before retry. If duplicate_request error, request_id already processed, safe to retry.'