neuron_quickstart

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it explains the tool checks connection status, lists recipes, checks profile existence, and suggests an action. This discloses the behavioral scope without obscuring side effects, though it does not describe the response shape or what happens if the connection fails.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core concept ('First-run onboarding') and then gives concrete behavioral detail and a usage trigger, making every sentence valuable.

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 onboarding tool, the description is complete enough: it explains what the tool does and when to invoke it. It does not describe return values or edge-case behavior, but no output schema exists and the tool's simplicity reduces the need for deeper detail.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so parameter guidance is unnecessary. Per the rubric, zero-parameter tools receive a baseline of 4, and the description adds no conflicting or confusing parameter information.

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 identifies a specific purpose: first-run onboarding for neuron-inspector. It names the concrete actions performed—checking extension connection status, showing available recipes, checking for a user profile, and suggesting a first action—which clearly distinguishes it from the many sibling tools.

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 an explicit trigger condition: 'Call this when you first connect to neuron-inspector and aren't sure where to start.' It does not name alternatives or explicitly say when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for a zero-parameter quickstart tool.

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