Neurons Recall Detail

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely new constraint — "Your own data only" — but says nothing about what happens with an invalid or expired ref, or what the returned payload looks like.

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 short sentences with the action front-loaded and the scope caveat placed last; the parenthetical examples are dense but each carries distinct information. No filler sentences.

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?

With one parameter and no output schema, the description should clarify what a successful "open" produces and how errors on stale refs behave. It covers input shape adequately but leaves the return contract entirely implicit for a detail-fetching tool.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden, and it does supply the main semantic content: an enumeration of ref shapes (`#12`, `memory:…`, `session:<id>@<line>`, `repo:<path>:<line>`). The grammar remains partial (the `memory:…` form is elided), keeping it below a 5.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ("Open a ref from recall") and backs it with four concrete ref-format examples, which makes it distinguishable from the sibling `recall` that produces those refs. It stops short of saying what "opening" yields, so it is clear but not fully differentiating.

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?

Sequencing is only implied by "a ref from recall" — the agent must infer this is the follow-up call after a `recall` listing. No explicit when-not guidance, and the description does not address overlap with siblings like `session_read` even though one accepted ref form is `session:<id>@<line>`.

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