Neurons Reply

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (writable, non-destructive, closed-world). The description adds genuinely useful behavioral semantics beyond that: 'accepted' grants a permission request and 'rejected' denies it, which tells the agent that the status field triggers a real side effect. It stops short of saying whether that action is reversible or what the sender sees.

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?

Four very short sentences, purpose front-loaded, no filler. The telegraphic fragments ('Proposals: status accepted or rejected.') are efficient but slightly cryptic, which keeps it from a 5.

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 4-parameter write tool with no parameter descriptions and no output schema, the description covers purpose and the status decision, but leaves the default status, the nature of refs, and any confirmation of what happens after a reply or an accept noticeably under-specified.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden. It does explain the meaning of 'accepted'/'rejected' in context and 'with sources' hints at the refs array, but the 'answered' enum value and the refs format (up to 30 strings) are never clarified, and body length limits are only implied by 'short'.

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 (Answer) and a specific resource (a message addressed to you), which implicitly differentiates it from the sibling 'send' for new messages. It doesn't explicitly name the alternative, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

'Only what was asked, short, with sources' gives content/style guidance, and the proposal/permission-request sentences tell the agent which status to pick in two situations. However, there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-'send' or 'review_submit' guidance, and the default 'answered' case is left unstated.

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