np_closed_loop

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It mentions reading the organoid, coupling to ASTRA fusion/ROS/ethics, and optionally driving the SNN, but it does not explain side effects, state changes, whether this is a continuous loop, prerequisites, or reversibility. For a likely mutating/controlling tool, this is a significant transparency gap.

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 a single dense sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core 'Closed loop' concept and quickly communicates the flow, making every word earn its place.

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?

This is a moderately complex tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and many sibling tools, but the description provides only a high-level pipeline sketch. It fails to explain return values, loop duration/termination, prerequisites, or what 'couple to ASTRA/ROS/ethics' actually entails, leaving the agent under-informed for correct invocation.

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?

The input schema already documents 3 of the 4 parameters (drive_snn, couple_ethics, drive_strength) with descriptions, and window_ms is inferable from its name and numeric constraints. The free-text description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the schema's 75% coverage supports a baseline score of 3; no contradictions or missing compensation needed.

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 defines a specific workflow (read organoid → couple to ASTRA fusion/ROS/ethics, optionally drive the SNN) and clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like inject_spikes or np_send_trigger. It lacks an explicit imperative verb such as 'run' or 'execute', but the 'Closed loop' label makes the intended operation reasonably clear.

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 this tool is for closed-loop organoid-to-SNN experiments and notes optional SNN driving, which gives some usage context. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer when to prefer this over similar tools like inject_spikes or np_send_trigger.

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