neuron_diagnose

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 lists the diagnostic areas, but it does not state whether the tool is read-only, what the response format looks like, or whether it requires a live extension session. For a diagnostic tool this is a notable gap.

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?

The description is a single compact line, front-loaded with 'Connection health' and followed by concrete diagnostic questions. Every word earns its place and there is no filler.

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 zero-parameter tool, naming the three diagnostic areas is reasonably complete. However, there is no output schema and no return-shape description, and the relationship to overlapping sibling diagnostics is not clarified, leaving some ambiguity about what exactly the agent will receive.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter ambiguity to clarify. The empty schema fully covers the parameter surface, and the baseline of 4 applies.

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 the resource and scope: connection health, dev mode, and open tabs. It is clearly a diagnostic status tool, and the question format signals what it reports. It does not use a formal verb+resource construction, but the intent is unambiguous.

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 implies using it when you need connection/dev-mode/tab status, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this over closely related siblings like neuron_check_auth, neuron_list_tabs, or neuron_session_diagnostics. There is no mention of exclusions or alternatives.

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