snn_step

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. 'Advance SNN Simulation' reveals no side effects, state changes, or operational details. It doesn't say whether it mutates the SNN state, is idempotent, or requires prior initialization.

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 extremely terse ('Advance SNN Simulation'), which borders on under-specification rather than conciseness. A brief but informative summary of behavior and the 'steps' parameter would be more appropriate.

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 the minimal schema (one parameter, no output schema) and absence of annotations, the description should provide substantial context. It doesn't even hint at how many steps are taken, the meaning of the parameter, or what happens during advancement, leaving the tool functionally opaque.

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 schema defines a 'steps' parameter with numeric bounds but no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The tool description does not mention 'steps' at all, leaving the agent to guess the parameter's meaning and effect.

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 'Advance SNN Simulation' uses a verb and resource, indicating it progresses the simulation, but is vague. It doesn't specify what 'advance' entails (e.g., step count, timing) and doesn't distinguish it from siblings like simulation_control or snn_reset.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions. The description is too sparse to help an agent choose between this and related simulation-control tools.

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