Neurons Discovery

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

The description states that passing model/task/label 'tells peers what you are doing', i.e. broadcasting your activity to other users — a side effect that modifies shared state. This conflicts with the annotation readOnlyHint=true, which declares the tool does not modify its environment.

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?

Two terse sentences with no filler, and the return-value summary is front-loaded. The first sentence is a cryptic noun list rather than a clean action statement, which slightly hurts readability.

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 read tool with annotations but no output schema, the description covers the key returns (online peers, lines, inbox count) and the optional broadcast params. It leaves 'lines' undefined and does not clarify the inbox-count overlap with the inbox sibling, so it is adequate but incomplete.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does add value by framing all three params (model/task/label) as activity advertisement to peers. However it never distinguishes the three fields or gives format/length context, so it only partially compensates.

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 enumerates what the tool surfaces (who is online, your lines, inbox count) but never states the action as a verb, leaving the agent to infer 'discover peers/status'. It also overlaps with the sibling 'inbox' tool by claiming to return 'your inbox count', muddying differentiation.

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 only guidance is 'Pass model/task/label to tell peers what you are doing', which explains parameter usage but not when to choose this tool over siblings like inbox or send. No when-not-to-use or alternative routing is given.

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