np_count_spikes

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

Annotations already reveal readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, and the annotation title discloses '(advances MEA clock)'. The description itself, however, never states this side effect — the most important behavioral trait — nor does it say what state changes or whether results are repeatable. 'Closed-loop' hints at it but adds little beyond the annotations.

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?

It is a single short sentence, which is appropriate, but the 'NeuroPlatform v2 —' prefix and the underscore internal name are low-value noise, and the useful part (what is counted, over what window) comes only after the 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?

For a stateful, non-idempotent closed-loop operation with a near-duplicate sibling, the description omits the essential context: that it advances the MEA clock, how it differs from np_query_spike_count, and what default behavior (0 required params) means. It is too thin for a mutating tool with no output schema.

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% — top_k and window_ms are each documented in the schema. The description's 'over an N-ms window' simply restates window_ms and adds no syntax, format, or interaction detail, so the baseline 3 for schema-covered params applies.

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 clause 'spikes per electrode over an N-ms window' states a specific verb (count) and resource (spikes per electrode), so an agent can tell what it computes. However, it never differentiates itself from closely named siblings like np_query_spike_count or np_query_spike_events, and the internal name '_count_spike' adds jargon rather than clarity.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. Given the near-identical sibling np_query_spike_count, the description should say why an agent would pick this closed-loop counter over that query tool, but it offers nothing.

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