crbro_connections

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It reveals that the tool returns connections with strength and type, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it mention side effects, permissions, or limitations beyond what the verb 'Get' implies.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place, with no unnecessary detail or repetition.

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?

For a simple 2-parameter read tool, the description covers the essential purpose and output type. It lacks explicit sibling differentiation and return format details, but given the simplicity, it is largely complete. No output schema exists, so the description adequately fills the gap by describing the returned connection data.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both neuron_id and min_strength. The description adds marginal reinforcement by referencing 'connection strength and type', which aligns with min_strength, but does not provide additional parameter semantics beyond the 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 uses a specific verb 'Get' with resource 'connections (synapses) for a specific neuron', making the purpose immediately clear. It distinguishes itself from siblings like crbro_connect (likely create) and crbro_neurons (list neurons) by focusing on retrieving connections for a specific neuron.

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 implies usage when you need related topics for a neuron, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like crbro_neurons or crbro_connect. No when-not scenarios or exclusions are provided.

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