Plan a fleet-wide immune response by analyzing threat patterns, recalling past successes, and targeting adjacent cohorts.
Plan one fleet immune cycle with variants, memory recall and adjacent cohort targeting.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| signals | Yes | ||
| topology | No | ||
| minSupport | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does 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 says the tool 'plans' but does not state whether this is a read-only operation, what side effects or mutations occur, what inputs trigger the behavior, or what the resulting plan looks like. The jargon about 'memory recall' and 'adjacent cohort targeting' hints at behavior but does not explain concrete effects.
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 with no filler and front-loads the primary action ('Plan one fleet immune cycle'). It is appropriately brief, though the brevity contributes to under-specification rather than being a structural flaw.
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?
The tool has a complex nested input schema, no output schema, and no annotations, while five sibling tools create selection ambiguity. The description provides a high-level purpose but omits required input semantics, output/return expectations, and usage context, so the definition is not sufficient for correct invocation.
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% and the description does not map any of the three parameters (signals, topology, minSupport) to the planning concepts. The required signals parameter is a complex nested object with five fields, yet the description only offers abstract phrases like 'variants' and 'memory recall' without tying them to schema properties. This leaves an agent without meaningful parameter guidance.
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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Plan one fleet immune cycle,' and it enumerates three distinctive features—variants, memory recall, and adjacent cohort targeting—that help separate it from siblings like immune_discover or immune_recall. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling tool, so the distinction is inferential rather than explicit.
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 immune_cycle instead of the five sibling tools, no mention of prerequisites, and no exclusions. Usage must be inferred entirely from the terse phrase 'Plan one fleet immune cycle,' which is not enough for an agent to choose confidently among related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.