neuron_profile_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It transparently states this is a read operation on a specific file and what the profile is used for. It does not cover error behavior if the profile is missing, but for a simple no-parameter getter this is sufficient.

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 concise, information-dense sentences. The core action and file path are front-loaded, and the explanation of profile variables adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the description adequately explains what the tool does and what the profile contains. It could mention the return format or missing-file behavior, but these are minor gaps for a no-parameter read operation without an output schema.

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 and the input schema is empty, so there is nothing to document. The description correctly focuses on resource and behavior rather than parameter details.

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 states a specific verb ('Read') and a specific resource (the user's profile at ~/.neuron/profile.yaml), and explains the purpose (auto-filling recipe variables). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling neuron_profile_save, which is the write counterpart.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you need the user's profile values such as name, email, location, tone, or timezone for recipe variables. It does not explicitly mention exclusions, but the read/write distinction from neuron_profile_save is implicit and strong.

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