neuron_check_auth

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'checks' validity but does not describe whether it makes a network call, whether it refreshes credentials, what happens when credentials are invalid, or what the return value looks like. This is minimal behavioral information.

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?

A single clear sentence that immediately states the purpose and qualifies the credential types. There is no redundant wording, no repetition of schema details, and no unnecessary background. It is efficiently front-loaded.

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 simple one-parameter check tool, the description is mostly sufficient, but the absence of any usage guidance, behavioral detail, or expected result format leaves an agent uncertain about edge cases like unsupported platforms or expired sessions. It is adequate but not rich enough to be considered complete on its own.

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 100%: the platform parameter is fully documented with an enum and a short description. The description adds the context that credentials involve cookies, headers, and tokens, but does not add further parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 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 ('check') and a clear resource ('credentials for a social platform'), and clarifies what counts as credentials (cookies, headers, tokens). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like neuron_get_cookies or neuron_session_diagnostics, which have different purposes.

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 gives no guidance about when to use this tool instead of alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites such as having an active session or logged-in profile. An agent must infer when 'check_auth' is the right choice among the many sibling tools.

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