get_neurofeedback_score

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It indicates a read operation ('sample'), but does not disclose side effects, latency, or whether it requires a connection. For a zero-parameter tool, the description is adequate but could mention that it returns immediately or is non-destructive.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. It contains no superfluous words and efficiently conveys the core information.

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?

Lacking an output schema, the description partially explains the return value ('in-zone now + cumulative %') but is vague about the format (e.g., separate numbers, object). It does not specify if other data is included. For a simple tool, more clarity on the return structure would complete the description.

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?

There are no parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (trivial). The description does not need to add parameter details. Baseline score of 4 is appropriate as it provides no additional parameter info but none is needed.

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 samples the current neurofeedback score, specifying it includes 'in-zone now + cumulative %'. This distinctly identifies the resource and action, differentiating it from siblings like get_band_powers or get_brain_state.

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 (e.g., get_brain_state, get_signal_quality). The context of 'sample' vs 'get' is not clarified, and there is no mention of prerequisites or context where this tool is appropriate.

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