neurogenesis__submit_evaluation

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

No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It details the effects of success/failure on edges, mentions safety axioms (NG1), and states it returns developmental-ledger events. This is more transparent than typical descriptions.

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 compound sentence that conveys core behavior, but includes a bracket header that adds noise. It is moderately concise but could be restructured for clarity.

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 the neurogenesis domain and lack of output schema, the description covers the evolution process, parameter structure, and return type. Minor gaps exist but overall it is quite complete.

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 coverage is 0%, but description compensates partially by listing expected fields in the evaluation object (task_id, task_type, success_score, etc.). However, it does not describe the agent_id parameter or that evaluation is an object with additionalProperties.

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 the verb 'Evolve' and resource 'agent with one task outcome', and specifies the evaluation fields. It clearly distinguishes from sibling neurogenesis tools like create_agent or route_task by focusing on evaluation submission.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description implies it should be used after obtaining a task outcome, but does not contrast with other neurogenesis tools or specify prerequisites.

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