get_snn_state

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavior. It fails to mention that this is a read-only operation, what the state contains, or any side effects. The description is completely inadequate for transparency.

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?

Although extremely concise (3 words), the description is under-specified and fails to provide necessary information. It sacrifices completeness for brevity, making it inefficient.

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, no annotations, and a 3-word description. For a state retrieval tool, the description should explain what is returned (e.g., 'current SNN engine state including spike rates, connectivity, etc.'). It is incomplete and insufficient for an agent.

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?

There are zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100% (empty). Per rubric, baseline is 4. The description adds no value beyond the schema, but cannot be penalized for missing parameter details when none exist.

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?

Description 'SNN Engine State' is vague and nearly a tautology of the tool name 'get_snn_state'. It does not specify a verb or differentiate from sibling status tools like 'get_system_status' or 'get_platform_status'.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools providing similar status information (e.g., simulation_control, get_metrics), the description offers no context for selection.

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