np_count_spikes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states basic functionality (spikes per electrode over a window) but omits that the tool reports the top-k most active electrodes (as indicated by the top_k parameter) and any side effects or safety considerations. Score 2 reflects insufficient 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?

The description is a single sentence, making it concise. However, the use of underscores and colons makes it slightly less readable. Score 4 for being concise but not perfectly 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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain what the tool returns. It does not mention return values, the top-k filtering, or the structure of results. For a simple tool with two parameters, this is a significant gap. Score 2 indicates incompleteness.

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 100% description coverage, so both parameters are already documented. The description adds minimal new meaning beyond referencing the window parameter. A baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states that the tool counts spikes per electrode over an N-ms window, which is clear and specific. However, it does not differentiate from similar siblings like np_query_spike_count, and the mention of 'Closed-loop' may be confusing. A score of 4 reflects good purpose clarity with minor room for improvement.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like np_query_spike_count exist but no distinction is made. A score of 2 indicates minimal usage guidance.

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