mne_connectivity

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return output and dependency, but does not state whether it modifies existing data, how it references epochs (via epochs_name), or any side effects. The default parameters like epochs_name suggest it operates on existing session objects, but this is not explicitly disclosed, leaving the agent guessing about invocation context.

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?

The description is concise and front-loaded, with the purpose in the first sentence. It lists methods, return value, and dependency in a structured way. Every sentence contributes useful information, though it could be slightly more organized.

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?

Given the tool has 5 optional parameters and no schema descriptions, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain key parameters like con_name and epochs_name, and does not clarify how the epochs object is accessed or whether the tool is read-only. The output schema exists but is not described in the text, so the agent lacks enough context to invoke this tool correctly without additional assumptions.

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 explain parameters. It lists method options, which helps, and implies fmin/fmax as the frequency band, but it does not explain con_name or epochs_name at all. These are left undefined, making it hard to know what values to provide. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema's defaults.

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, listing specific methods. This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from all sibling MNE tools, none of which perform connectivity analysis.

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 description implies usage: when you have Epochs and want connectivity in a frequency band. It gives clear context by specifying the method options and return format, but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use it. No alternative tools are named, but the intended scenario is clear.

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