np_query_spike_count

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the purpose and does not mention whether the tool is read-only, if it modifies state, or any side effects. For a query tool, a read-only hint or clarification that it does not alter the system would be beneficial.

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 immediately conveys the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded with the system prefix 'NeuroPlatform v2 DB' and the core function. No unnecessary words or repetitions.

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?

Given the tool has three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the default window length, how the spike rate is computed (e.g., scaling from seconds to minutes), or what format the output takes. An agent would benefit from details on parameter effects and return structure.

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 input schema has three parameters with descriptions for window_sec and fsname, but nonzero_only lacks a description. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema; it does not explain the units, defaults, or the role of nonzero_only. With 67% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate for the missing parameter info.

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 'SpikeCountQuery: spikes/minute per electrode over a time window', providing a specific verb (query), resource (spike count per electrode), and scope (time window). It distinguishes from siblings like np_query_spike_events (events vs counts) and np_count_spikes (name implies similar but description focuses on querying over time).

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 usage for querying spike count over a time window but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like np_count_spikes or np_query_spike_events. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context from the name and sibling list.

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