genome_seed

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Seed' implies some generative or state-creating behavior, but the description does not state whether the operation mutates data, is randomized, how many candidates are produced, or what it returns.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded with no filler, which is good. However, the brevity crosses into under-specification for a tool with a nested parameter and no other context.

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?

For a workflow tool with four siblings, no annotations, and no output schema, this description omits return values, side effects, candidate count, randomness, and any relationship to the other genome tools. An agent lacks enough information to confidently select and invoke it.

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 only says 'for one phenotype' without explaining the phenotype object, its required nested fields, or how to populate values like centroid or dominantSignatures. The schema is self-documenting, but the description adds almost no semantic meaning to the parameter.

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 uses a specific verb ('seed') and names the resource ('multiple candidate security genomes') for one phenotype, which clearly states the core operation. It is reasonably distinguishable from siblings like 'evolve' and 'infer_phenotypes', though it never defines what a 'security genome' is in this context.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is provided, and the description does not mention alternatives or prerequisites. An agent has to guess from sibling names that seeding is an initial generation step before evolving or planning trials.

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