add_solution

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clarifies that solutions are added to the 'current generation' and mentions different types of solutions, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a mutation operation, what permissions are needed, how solutions are stored, or what happens on failure. The description adds some context but leaves significant gaps.

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 well-structured with a clear opening statement followed by bullet points for use cases and a final requirement statement. Every sentence earns its place, and there's no wasted text. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic context but lacks completeness. It explains what the tool does and when to use it, but doesn't cover important aspects like what the tool returns, error conditions, or system behavior after adding a solution. For a mutation tool with 2 parameters, more completeness would be expected.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds marginal value by emphasizing that 'solution content should directly address the problem statement' for the content parameter, but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what the schema descriptions already state.

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 the action ('Add a new solution') and resource ('to the current generation of the evolutionary system'), distinguishing it from siblings like evolve_generation or score_solution. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from start_evolution which might also involve adding initial solutions.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool ('to contribute solutions to the current generation') and lists three specific use cases (initial solutions, evolved solutions, variations). It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives among siblings, but the context is sufficiently clear.

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