Run one evolutionary generation of security scan and policy configurations, using measured fitness or rehearsal defaults to advance the population toward improved risk reduction and coverage.
Run one deterministic evolutionary generation using rehearsal by default or caller-supplied measured fitness keyed by genome id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| phenotype | Yes | ||
| population | Yes | ||
| fitnessByGenomeId | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses determinism and the default/caller-supplied fitness modes, which is meaningful, but it does not explain what 'rehearsal' entails, whether the population is mutated in place, or what is returned.
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 efficient sentence with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. It is slightly dense, but every phrase contributes to the overall meaning.
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?
This is a complex tool with nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description offers only one sentence. It leaves important operational details undefined, such as side effects, return behavior, and what makes the generation 'deterministic' in practice.
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, but it only adds meaning for fitnessByGenomeId ('caller-supplied measured fitness keyed by genome id'). The required phenotype and population parameters are not explained at all.
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 ('Run one deterministic evolutionary generation') and names the fitness mechanism. It is clear about what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools such as genome_seed or genome_lineage.
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 gives useful conditional guidance: use rehearsal by default, or supply measured fitness keyed by genome id. However, it does not say when to choose this tool over alternative genome tools or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.