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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the NeuroPlatform v2 DB context and the metric but does not clarify whether this is a read-only operation, what output format is returned, or how the spike rate is computed. This leaves significant ambiguity about side effects and return values.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the key concepts (DB, metric, time window) with no filler or redundancy. Every word contributes to the purpose.

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?

The description is too sparse for a query tool with no output schema. It does not explain the return structure, whether results are aggregated per electrode, or how nonzero_only affects results. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 description adds no parameter-specific meaning. The schema already describes fsname and window_sec, but nonzero_only is undocumented in both the schema and the description. The description does not compensate for this gap, so it adds little value beyond the schema's partial coverage.

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 identifies the resource (spike counts per electrode) and the computation (spikes/minute over a time window). However, it lacks an explicit verb such as 'get' or 'list', and the purpose is phrased as a label rather than a full sentence, which slightly reduces clarity.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus similar sibling tools like np_count_spikes or np_query_spike_events. The description does not mention any context, alternatives, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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