Neurons Review Request

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the work is delegated to a 'running' agent and results are delivered asynchronously to the inbox rather than returned inline. It omits what happens if no agent is available and any cost/timeout behavior, so it stops short of full transparency.

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?

Three short clauses with the core action front-loaded and the input-mode hint immediately after; no filler. It is arguably too terse for an 8-parameter tool, which costs it the top score.

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 an 8-param, no-output-schema tool the description covers what an agent needs to call it correctly: what it does, the two input shapes, that the response is asynchronous (findings arrive in the inbox, so review_get is implied), and the secrets constraint. Remaining gaps are parameter naming rather than missing task-critical information.

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 must carry the parameter burden. It explains the important ambiguity — diff vs base/head + files are alternative ways to specify the change — but leaves `to`, `repo`, `focus` (up to 4000 chars) and `title` entirely undefined, so half the parameters remain opaque.

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 names a specific verb and resource: ask a running agent to review a change, with the two supported input shapes (diff text, or base/head + files). It is clear what the tool does, though it never names the sibling review_get/review_submit tools that an agent would use to retrieve or supply the result, so differentiation is only implicit via 'findings come back to your inbox'.

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?

It does state the two mutually exclusive invocation modes and a hard constraint ('No secrets in the diff'), which is genuine usage guidance. However, it never says when to choose this over review_get or review_submit, nor what prerequisite state is needed (an agent actually being 'running'), so the agent must infer the surrounding workflow.

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