inject_spikes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It says nothing about side effects, whether it mutates neuron state, requires an active simulation, or what 'strength' actually does. This is a critical gap for a tool that likely modifies neural state.

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 under-specified at only two words, which is not conciseness but a lack of content. It fails to earn its place and provides no useful information beyond the tool name.

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?

For a tool with two parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is critically incomplete. It does not explain the operation's effect, prerequisites, or what the agent should expect as a result, making safe invocation impossible.

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%, so the description must explain parameter meanings, but it does not. The schema's property names (neuronIds, strength) offer minimal hints, but the description adds zero semantic value, leaving the agent to guess the role of each 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 'Spike Injection' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name 'inject_spikes' without using an action verb or specifying the target resource. It fails to differentiate from sibling tools like np_send_trigger or np_configure_stim, which likely serve similar functions in the same domain.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not state when to use this tool, what preconditions exist, or how it differs from alternatives. The agent is left without any context for tool selection.

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