np_closed_loop

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions coupling to multiple subsystems but does not detail effects on organoid state, destructiveness, permissions, or latency. The operational impact is underdescribed.

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, information-dense sentence. It is concise, albeit jargon-heavy, and contains no unnecessary words.

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 orchestrates a complex closed-loop process, but the description omits return behavior, error conditions, and prerequisites (e.g., organoid activity, ASTRA availability). Without an output schema, more context is essential.

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 75% (three of four parameters have descriptions in the schema). The tool description adds no extra parameter context beyond the schema. The baseline is 3 due to high coverage, and no additional value is provided.

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 states the tool's function: it reads organoid data and couples it to ASTRA fusion, ROS, and ethics, with optional SNN driving. This distinguishes it from siblings like inject_spikes (simple injection) or np_send_trigger (triggering).

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?

The description implies the tool is for closed-loop coupling but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like inject_spikes or simulation_control. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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