neurogenesis__create_agent

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states what the tool does and returns, but omits side effects, permissions, rate limits, or failure behavior.

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 includes a bracketed prefix that adds context but could be more concise. The parameter list is front-loaded, but the overall length is reasonable.

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 complexity of creating a developmental agent and the lack of output schema, the description covers input structure and return value. However, it lacks details on validation, error conditions, or the meaning of 'evaluation-driven growth', leaving gaps.

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?

The input schema is minimal (single object with additionalProperties), so the description compensates by listing expected fields (agent_name, purpose, initial_nodes, fitness_metrics, etc.) and constraints like 'unique, >=1'. This adds significant value.

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 clearly states that the tool creates a developmental agent from a digital genome, listing required and optional fields. It distinguishes from siblings like delete_agent and describe_agent by focusing on creation.

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 usage for creating an agent but does not explicitly state when to use it vs. alternatives like delete or describe. No exclusions or alternative suggestions are given.

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