inject_spikes

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state that this operation modifies the network state, whether the effect is reversible, whether it requires a running simulation, or what side effects it may have. The description only names the operation without describing any behavior.

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 extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. A concise description would use few words while packing meaningful information; this one simply restates the tool name. No useful content is front-loaded because there is no content.

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 tool that presumably manipulates a neural simulation, the description is far too minimal. It lacks any indication of effect, required state, parameters, or relationship to the surrounding toolset. With no output schema and no annotations, a two-word description leaves the agent without enough context to invoke the tool correctly.

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%, and the description adds no meaning to the parameters. It does not explain what neuronIds refers to, what strength controls, how strength interacts with neuronIds, or what typical usage looks like. The raw schema provides types and ranges, but the description contributes nothing to parameter understanding.

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 'Spike Injection' is a noun phrase that simply restates the tool name without a verb or resource. It does not explain what the tool does, what 'spikes' are injected into, or what the outcome is. This is a tautology that fails to distinguish the tool from its siblings.

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 gives no indication of when to use this tool versus any of the many sibling tools such as snn_step, set_parameter, or simulation_control. There is no mention of contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent has no guidance on when inject_spikes is the appropriate choice.

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