np_closed_loop

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose side effects and safety. It mentions optional SNN driving and ethics coupling, which hint at state changes, but does not explain whether the operation is read-only, modifies the organoid/SNN state, or what side effects occur.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the platform name and core concept. Every word contributes; no filler.

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 is moderately complex with 4 parameters and no output schema, yet the description provides only a high-level pipeline. It doesn't explain expected return values, invocation behavior, or how parameters affect the closed loop, leaving the agent under-informed.

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 schema covers 75% of parameters with descriptions. The description rarely references the parameters: 'optionally drive the SNN' corresponds to drive_snn, but window_ms and drive_strength are not addressed. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 identifies a closed-loop coupling action ('read organoid → couple to ASTRA fusion/ROS/ethics, optionally drive the SNN') but lacks an explicit verb naming the operation (e.g., 'run', 'trigger', 'configure'), making it ambiguous what invoking the tool does. It partially differentiates from siblings by mentioning ASTRA/ROS/ethics, but the purpose remains vague.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like np_send_trigger or inject_spikes. The description implies a closed-loop use case but does not state conditions, exclusions, or alternatives.

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