neurover_account_settings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful detail that the returned value is one of two login modes (manual vs system keychain), which is genuine return-value context since no output schema exists. It does not say what happens when the account is unconfigured or unknown, which is the main remaining behavioral 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?

One short sentence with no filler, and the key qualifier ('already configured') is placed early. It loses a point only because the sentence is a fragment that omits the action verb, so it is terse at the cost of clarity.

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 read tool with no output schema, the description does supply the return-value domain, which is the most important missing piece. However, it leaves the sole parameter and the unconfigured-account case unexplained, so it is only partially complete.

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 0% and the single 'account' parameter is undocumented in both schema and description. The description never mentions the parameter, so an agent gets no guidance on its format (name, ID, email?) or what happens when it is omitted, despite it being optional.

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 the subject as the login mode of an already-configured account and even enumerates the possible values (manual / system keychain), but it is a bare noun phrase with no verb, so it never states that the tool reads/returns this setting. It also does not distinguish itself from near-siblings such as neurover_account_setup, neurover_login, or neurover_account_overview.

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 when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says whether to call this before neurover_login, after neurover_account_setup, or instead of neurover_account_overview. The only implicit cue is 'already configured', which hints at a precondition but is not framed as one.

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