Mne Connectivity

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose that the tool returns an ordered-edge heatmap without forcing symmetry and that it requires the mne-connectivity package. However, it does not mention whether invoking the tool creates named variables, modifies session state, or raises errors when prerequisites are missing, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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?

Three concise sentences, each earning its place: the core purpose, method options, output behavior, and the key alternative plus dependency. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and contains no filler.

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?

With an output schema present, return values are already covered. The description provides the alternative tool and dependency, which helps context. However, the undocumented parameters, especially epochs_name and con_name, leave the definition incomplete for an agent that has no other way to learn their meaning.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it only documents the method parameter with example values ('coh', 'plv', 'wpli', 'pli', 'imcoh'). The frequency-band mention hints at fmin/fmax, but con_name and epochs_name are completely unexplained, which is a significant gap for an agent trying to call the tool correctly.

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 clearly states the tool computes spectral connectivity between channels over Epochs in a frequency band and returns an ordered-edge heatmap. It also distinguishes itself from mne_compute_connectivity by noting that the sibling handles multi-band, channel-pair, and estimator parameters. The verb is slightly implicit ('Spectral connectivity' rather than 'Compute spectral connectivity'), but the scope is 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?

Explicitly points to mne_compute_connectivity as the alternative for multi-band, channel-pair, and estimator parameters, which tells the agent when this simpler tool is appropriate. It does not fully spell out all 'when not to use' cases, but the guidance is clear and actionable.

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