neuron_detect_blocker

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says 'check', implying a read-only inspection, but does not state whether it executes JavaScript, modifies navigation, or has side effects. It also doesn't describe what happens when a blocker is found or what output shape to expect (boolean vs. details).

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that wastes no words. It packs the verb, resource, and a useful list of blocker types into a compact form.

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 tool, the description covers the core action well. However, there is no output schema and the description does not explain what the tool returns, so an agent must infer the result semantics. It also lacks any mention of when to use it among the large sibling set, leaving some gaps.

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 already documents tabId as 'Chrome tab ID to inspect' with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb ('check'), a resource ('a tab'), and explicitly enumerates the conditions detected (rate limit wall, login prompt, captcha, interstitial). This clearly distinguishes it from related siblings such as neuron_check_auth or neuron_query_dom. No ambiguity remains about what the tool does.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like neuron_check_auth or neuron_diagnose. There are no exclusions or explicit conditions. The verb 'check' hints at suspicious-blocker scenarios, but this is implied rather than stated.

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