np_query_spike_events

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool returns individual spike timings (as opposed to aggregates) and references a time window, but it does not state that it is a read-only query, describe return format, or mention any side effects or limitations. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

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, tightly worded sentence that immediately communicates the domain and core function, with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately concise and well-structured.

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 tool has no output schema, no annotations, and only 33% schema description coverage. The description provides a high-level summary but omits critical context such as expected return structure, relationship to sibling count tools, and behavior of parameters like limit and fsname. It is not complete enough for reliable tool selection and invocation.

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 only 33% (only window_sec has a description). The description adds little parameter-level meaning: 'over a window' aligns with window_sec but does not explain limit or fsname. Given the low coverage, the description should compensate but does not.

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 'SpikeEventQuery: individual spike timings over a window' clearly identifies the tool's function as retrieving individual spike events within a time window, distinguishing it from sibling count-based tools like np_count_spikes and np_query_spike_count. However, it lacks an explicit imperative verb (e.g., 'Query' or 'Retrieve'), reading more like a label than a directive.

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 alternatives such as np_query_spike_count or np_query_triggers. The description simply states what it is without contextualizing its use case relative to siblings.

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