np_count_spikes

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior (e.g., read-only, side effects, required permissions). It only says 'Closed-loop', which is vague and does not clarify whether the operation is safe or part of an active control loop. No behavioral traits are explained.

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 and does not waste words. It is front-loaded with the tool name and purpose, though the phrasing is somewhat awkward.

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 has only two parameters and no output schema, so the description does not need to be lengthy. However, it lacks context about the meaning of 'closed-loop' and does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., a list of electrode counts). This leaves gaps for a non-expert agent.

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 100% with both 'top_k' and 'window_ms' having descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 indicates a spike-counting function over a time window ('spikes per electrode over an N-ms window'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the similar sibling tool 'np_query_spike_count', and the phrase 'Closed-loop _count_spike' is somewhat cryptic.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'np_query_spike_count' or 'np_query_spike_events'. There is no mention of conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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