neuron_session_diagnostics

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. 'Get ... snapshot' reasonably implies a read-only diagnostic operation and it specifies the reported areas, but it does not disclose whether a live agent session is required, potential error conditions, or whether the command has any side effects beyond returning the snapshot.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the em-dash enumeration packs the return areas into a compact, scannable structure. Every word contributes meaning.

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 diagnostic tool, the description is largely sufficient to invoke it, and it names four return areas. However, without an output schema or annotations, it omits context such as whether a session must be active, how the values are represented, and how this snapshot relates to related diagnostics.

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 schema is empty, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4; the described fields are output content, not parameters.

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 ('Get') and resource ('agent session health snapshot') and lists concrete components: capture rate, stall detection, auth health, buffer size. This clearly distinguishes it from most sibling tools, though it does not explicitly contrast it with related diagnostics such as neuron_check_auth or neuron_perf_snapshot.

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?

There is no guidance about when to prefer this tool over alternatives, no exclusions, and no context about prerequisites. The intended use is only implied by the tool's name and the verb 'Get'.

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