np_count_spikes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Closed-loop' hinting at interaction with stimulation, but does not state whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, requires specific system states, or what the output format is. This is insufficient transparency.

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 sentence, efficient and front-loaded with the core purpose. The 'NeuroPlatform v2 —' prefix is unnecessary filler but does not significantly detract. Overall, it earns its place as a brief summary.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain return values and usage context. It does neither. The tool appears to be a query for spike counts, but the description lacks details about what the result looks like or how it fits into closed-loop workflows. This is incomplete for a tool with no other structured guidance.

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 descriptions cover both parameters (top_k and window_ms) with clear meanings, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond referring to 'N-ms window', which maps to window_ms, but does not mention top_k. No meaningful addition over the schema.

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 counts spikes per electrode over a time window, which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it does not differentiate this tool from sibling np_query_spike_count, which likely provides similar functionality. The 'Closed-loop' prefix adds context but is not explained.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like np_query_spike_count or np_closed_loop. It does not state any exclusions, prerequisites, or context for use. This is a clear gap.

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