np_closed_loop

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It mentions coupling to ethics and driving the SNN, implying state-modifying side effects, but does not disclose specifics like whether organoid state is altered, what the coupling entails, or if the tool has destructive consequences. More detail is needed for a safe agent.

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 that efficiently communicates the core function. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., list key components) but remains concise.

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?

With no output schema and moderate complexity (4 parameters, closed-loop coupling), the description lacks completeness. It does not explain return values, error conditions, prerequisites, or side effects. Given the absence of annotations, more context is necessary for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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). The tool description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it repeats the high-level concept. The parameter descriptions in schema are adequate for drive_snn, couple_ethics, and drive_strength, but window_ms lacks a description. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high coverage without additional enrichment.

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 performs a closed-loop operation that reads from an organoid and couples to ASTRA fusion/ROS/ethics, with optional SNN driving. The verb 'read' and 'couple' specify the action, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like snn_step or inject_spikes by emphasizing the closed-loop integration.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as snn_step, inject_spikes, or check_ethics. The description implies it is for closed-loop experiments but does not state prerequisites or when not to use it.

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