immune_breed

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a key behavioral trait: the operation is non-escalating and deterministic, which is valuable context. However, it does not explain what 'breeding' entails (e.g., how the two recipes are combined, what happens to the inputs, whether the original recipes are modified), nor does it describe the output format or any side effects. The description adds some behavioral context but leaves significant gaps.

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 that is reasonably concise and front-loads the core action ('Breed two non-executing antibody recipes'). It packs useful constraints into a compact form. It could be slightly more structured by separating the safety note, but it is not bloated or redundant.

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 tool has 3 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is not complete enough. An agent would not know what the 'mutation' parameter does, what the output looks like, or what constraints apply to the breeding process (e.g., whether inputs must be of a certain mode or generation). The description provides a high-level purpose but lacks the operational detail needed to invoke the tool correctly.

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 for the schema's lack of parameter documentation. The description mentions 'two non-executing antibody recipes' which maps to parameters a and b, but it does not explain the 'mutation' parameter at all. The nested object schemas for a and b are detailed but the description adds no meaning about how they are used in breeding. This is a clear gap for a 3-parameter tool with zero schema coverage.

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 verb ('Breed') and resource ('two non-executing antibody recipes into a deterministic next-generation candidate'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like immune_discover or immune_synthesize. It also adds a meaningful constraint ('non-executing', 'without escalating destructive action') that helps an agent understand the tool's role. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools or contrast them, so it falls just short of full differentiation.

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 when to use this tool: when you have two non-executing antibody recipes and want to breed them into a next-generation candidate. It also implies a safety constraint ('without escalating destructive action'), which suggests it is preferred over more destructive alternatives. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternative tools, leaving the agent to infer the decision boundary.

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