np_closed_loop

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full transparency burden. It discloses a high-level pipeline but omits side effects, state changes, prerequisites, or safety implications. The mention of 'ethics' coupling hints at significant behavioral consequences without detail.

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 with no filler, efficiently covering the main workflow. It front-loads the product name and closed-loop concept, though the dense jargon makes it less immediately parseable.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description does not explain return values or expected outcomes. It also lacks prerequisites, configuration guidance, and relationships to sibling tools. For a 4-parameter orchestration tool, this is incomplete but not entirely absent.

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 high (75%), so the baseline is 3. The description's 'optionally drive the SNN' loosely maps to drive_snn/drive_strength, but it does not add meaning beyond the schema. window_ms remains undocumented in both schema and description, but overall coverage is adequate.

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 identifies the tool as a closed-loop pipeline: read organoid, couple to ASTRA fusion/ROS/ethics, and optionally drive the SNN. It has a specific verb chain and resource scope, though jargon-heavy and not clearly differentiated from sibling tools like sensor_fuse or inject_spikes.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'optionally drive the SNN' implies configurable behavior but does not state when this tool should be preferred over sibling tools like inject_spikes or check_ethics. Usage context is only vaguely implied.

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