neuron_get_storage

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

The description discloses a valuable behavioral detail: values are truncated at 500 chars. It also labels the operation as 'Read', implying non-destructive behavior. With no annotations provided, it carries the behavioral burden reasonably but does not mention what happens with missing storage, the response shape, or whether both storage types are returned together.

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 states the verb, resource, scope, and a key truncation limit without wasted words. Every part contributes to the agent's understanding.

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 read-only tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description plus schema is nearly sufficient. It could be slightly improved by clarifying the response format and emphasizing that tabId identifies the page being read, but nothing critical is missing.

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 schema already describes both parameters completely, with 100% schema description coverage. The description reinforces the 'localStorage or sessionStorage' choice but does not add meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('localStorage or sessionStorage entries'), with an explicit scope ('for the current page'). An agent can clearly distinguish this from sibling tools like neuron_clear_storage or neuron_get_cookies, since the resource and operation are unambiguous.

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 intended use is implied by the description: when an agent needs to inspect browser storage for a page, this is the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to alternatives, so the guidance relies on inference rather than explicit routing.

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