neuron_diff_states

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explains what the tool returns and implies it is a read-only comparison, but it does not explicitly state side effects, prerequisites such as snapshot existence, or failure behavior when labels are missing. The 'Compare' wording implies non-mutating behavior, but more explicit disclosure would be stronger.

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 sentences with no redundant filler. The core action is front-loaded, followed immediately by a precise summary of the return values and a representative use case. Every sentence contributes information.

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 low-complexity tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately explains the tool's purpose, inputs' origin, outputs, and typical use case. It could additionally name the companion neuron_snapshot_state more explicitly as a prerequisite and note that snapshots must exist under the given labels, but overall it is sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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 100%, with both 'before' and 'after' labeled as snapshot labels. The description adds that these are snapshots from neuron_snapshot_state, which slightly reinforces parameter meaning, but it does not describe format, ordering semantics, or what happens if labels are swapped or invalid. This meets the baseline for fully schema-documented params.

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 ('Compare') and a concrete resource ('two page snapshots created with neuron_snapshot_state'), and clearly states the output shape: added, removed, and changed elements plus URL/title changes. This distinguishes it from related DOM-inspection tools like neuron_query_dom and neuron_find_elements.

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?

It gives clear context for when to use the tool: detecting what changed on a page after actions like clicks, form submissions, or navigation. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the use-case framing is specific enough to guide selection among the many siblings.

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