crbro_neurons

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool lists neurons and returns specific fields (ID, name, domain, heat, facts count), indicating a read-only operation. It does not mention pagination or performance, but the behavior is sufficiently transparent for a list tool.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and resource, then lists return fields. Every part is functional and there is no unnecessary verbosity.

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?

The description is complete for a simple list tool, given the schema covers parameters and there is no output schema. It mentions return fields, which is helpful. However, it omits details like sorting or how filters combine, but these are not critical for basic usage.

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 input schema already provides detailed descriptions for all four parameters (100% coverage), so the description does not need to repeat them. It adds minimal value by mentioning 'optional filters' but does not clarify semantics beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('all neurons in the brain'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like crbro_neuron (singular) and crbro_connections. It also specifies optional filters and return fields, making the tool's scope explicit.

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 for listing neurons with filters but does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives, such as crbro_neuron for a single neuron. There is no exclusion guidance, but the context is reasonably clear from the verb and resource.

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