crbro_neuron

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral transparency. It indicates this is a read operation and lists returned elements (facts, decisions, patterns, connections, heat score). However, it does not explicitly confirm non-mutating behavior, error cases, or authorization requirements, though the low risk of a read operation makes this a minor gap.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that states the action, target, and return content with no fluff or repetition. Every word earns its place.

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 read tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (all facts, decisions, patterns, connections, heat score). The lack of an output schema is compensated by listing the return fields. Minor missing context is the precise format or meaning of 'heat score', but this is not critical.

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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage with a clear description and examples for the 'id' parameter. The tool description echoes 'ID or name' but does not add meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Read'), the target resource ('a specific neuron'), and the method of identification ('by ID or name'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like crbro_neurons (presumably listing all neurons) and crbro_recall (recall).

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 phrase 'a specific neuron' implies use when you need details of one entity by ID/name, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. Sibling tools are not referenced, so guidance is only implied, not explicit.

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