Advance a spiking neural network simulation by a specified number of steps to progress LIF+STDP dynamics within the ASTRA neuromorphic pipeline.
Advance SNN Simulation
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "snn_step"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| steps | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already disclose that this is non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds nothing beyond the title; it does not explain state mutation effects, step limits, or side effects of advancing the simulation.
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 three words, front-loaded, and free of filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though its extreme brevity leaves it indistinguishable from the title.
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 one parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering safety aspects, the description still lacks essential context: when to advance versus reset or control the simulation, and what the steps parameter means. It is minimally viable but incomplete.
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 does not mention the 'steps' parameter at all. While the schema provides type, default, minimum, and maximum, the description fails to compensate for the missing semantic meaning of the parameter.
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 states a specific verb and resource: advancing an SNN simulation. It distinguishes the tool from read-only siblings like get_snn_state and mutating siblings like snn_reset, though it does not explicitly differentiate from other simulation-control tools.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as snn_reset, simulation_control, or inject_spikes. The verb 'Advance' implies progressing the simulation, but no conditions or exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.