np_query_spike_count

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the core behavior (read-only query, aggregated output) but lacks details about side effects, permissions, or how parameters like nonzero_only affect results. The 'Query' label implies non-destructive behavior, but this is not explicit.

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, focused sentence that fronts the tool's purpose and key parameters. No redundant words; the 'NeuroPlatform v2 DB' context is useful and the rest is specific.

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 provide more detail about return format and parameter behavior. It explains the output metric (spikes/min per electrode) but omits return structure, valid fsname values, and the exact effect of nonzero_only. This is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior without extra inference.

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 coverage is 67% (fsname and window_sec have descriptions; nonzero_only does not). The tool description clarifies that window_sec is the time window and output is per electrode, adding some context. However, it does not explain fsname's role or the meaning of nonzero_only, leaving that parameter ambiguous.

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 is a spike count query ('SpikeCountQuery') for NeuroPlatform v2, returning spikes per minute per electrode over a time window. This specific verb-resource combination differentiates it from siblings like np_count_spikes (likely a total count) and np_query_spike_events (raw events).

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, and does not mention any exclusions or specific scenarios. The 'time window' phrase implies a use case, but no explicit instructions or references to sibling tools are given.

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