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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It clearly discloses that the tool creates an agent, enforces constraints like unique initial_nodes and at least one fitness metric, and returns an agent_id plus initial graph summary. It does not mention persistence or authorization, but the core side effect and response shape are transparent.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core action, and uses a structured inline list to convey constraints without wasting words. Every element contributes to the agent's ability to invoke the tool correctly.

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 nested genome object, zero schema descriptions, and no annotations, the description covers most of what an agent needs: input structure, validation constraints, and return summary. The output schema covers detailed return shape, and the only notable gap is the undocumented request_id parameter.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds substantial meaning to the genome parameter by specifying required fields, uniqueness rules, minimum counts, and optional growth_rules/safety_axioms. The optional request_id parameter is left undocumented, which prevents a perfect score.

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 states a specific action ('Create a developmental agent') and a clear resource ('from a digital genome'), with the required and optional genome fields enumerated. It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like delete_agent, describe_agent, and list_agents because only this one creates.

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 implies the tool is used when constructing a new agent from genome data, but it does not explicitly state when to choose create_agent over alternatives such as import_state. There are no when-not-to-use exclusions or explicit routing guidance.

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