snn_step

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to disclose what 'advancing' does to the simulation state, whether it mutates internal state, whether it requires initialization, or what side effects occur. The description provides zero behavioral information beyond the word 'advance'.

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 very concise (four words), but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It does not provide enough information to be useful, so the single sentence does not 'earn its place'.

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?

Given the lack of annotations, output schema, and minimal input schema, the description needed to explain what the tool does and what happens when invoked. It fails to provide any meaningful context, making the description inadequate for an agent to understand the tool's role or effects.

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 one parameter 'steps' with a default, minimum, and maximum, but no description. The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does not mention 'steps' at all, leaving the parameter's meaning and usage completely unexplained.

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 'Advance SNN Simulation' provides a verb and a resource, but it is essentially a paraphrase of the tool name 'snn_step' and lacks specificity about what advancing entails (e.g., number of steps, time increment). It does not distinguish this tool from siblings like 'snn_reset' or 'get_snn_state', making the purpose ambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any preconditions, frequency of use, or contexts where another tool would be more appropriate. With no usage context provided, the agent is left to guess when this tool should be invoked.

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