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 behavioral traits. It hints at reading and coupling actions but does not explain side effects, resource consumption, or whether operations are reversible. The description leaves significant uncertainty about tool behavior.

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 concise—a single sentence—but the use of proprietary terms and lack of structure (dash) reduce clarity. It is economical but not optimally informative.

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 description fails to mention return values, side effects, or prerequisites. Given the absence of an output schema, the tool description should provide more context about what the tool produces or accomplishes, especially for a complex closed-loop operation.

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 coverage is 75% (3 of 4 params have descriptions). The tool description adds vague context about the overall closed-loop flow but does not enhance understanding of individual parameters like window_ms or drive_strength beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 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 mentions 'closed loop', 'read organoid', 'couple to ASTRA fusion/ROS/ethics', and 'optionally drive the SNN', which gives a general idea of the tool's function but lacks a specific verb and resource. It does not clearly differentiate from sibling tools like inject_spikes or np_send_trigger.

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, nor does it mention any prerequisites or when not to use it. This forces the agent to rely on trial and error.

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