FunSearch harness (evaluate/register/status)

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

Annotations are neutral (no readOnly/destructive/idempotent hints). Description adds behavioral context: sandbox (no-network, timeout, rlimit), MAP-Elites DB storage, few-shot context retrieval. This goes beyond structured fields.

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?

Description is 4 sentences, well-structured, front-loaded with purpose. Could be slightly more concise but effectively communicates key workflow.

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 complexity (7 params, 3 actions) and presence of output schema (not shown), description covers core workflow and returns. Might miss edge cases (e.g., error handling on invalid program_src), but sufficient for iterative evolution use case.

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%, but description adds action-specific context (e.g., 'program_src — YOU write it', 'behavior — selects MAP-Elites cell'). Clarifies conditional parameters per action.

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?

Description clearly states tool is a sandboxed program-search harness with three explicit actions (evaluate, register, status) and problem IDs. Distinct from sibling tools like verify_formal or search_directive.

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?

Provides guidance 'Use to iteratively evolve programs — YOU are the generator, mathlas is the deterministic scorer.' Implicitly suggests when to use (evolution loop) and mentions sandbox constraints, but doesn't explicitly list when not to use or compare to siblings.

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