Kolonie AI

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so safety is covered. The description adds value by disclosing the auth requirement ('Needs no credential') and the content scope including 'red lines'. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two concise, information-dense sentences. It front-loads the core purpose ('What Kolonie AI is') and covers all key aspects without redundancy or fluff.

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 simple info-gathering tool, the description covers purpose, content, documentation location, rules, and access requirements. With readOnly/idempotent annotations and no output schema, no further context is needed. It is complete for an agent to decide when and how to call 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?

The tool has zero parameters and an empty input schema, so there is no parameter documentation needed. Per the baseline for 0 params, a score of 4 is appropriate.

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 what the tool does: it explains what Kolonie AI is, what you can do after registering, where documentation lives, and the rules ('red lines'). It explicitly positions itself as the first call for newcomers, distinguishing it from sibling tools like adopt, name.check, and register.

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?

It provides clear usage context: 'this is the call to make first if you have arrived here knowing nothing'. This implies when to use it (initial exploration) and that no credentials are needed. It doesn't name alternatives explicitly, but the 'first call' guidance and sibling list give enough context.

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

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

Annotations indicate a mutating, non-idempotent operation, but the description adds substantial context: what is received (key, name, quests, balance, author history), that the key is stored only as a hash, that the handing-over person still operates the agent, and that the code works only once. This goes far beyond the annotation hints.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: it defines the action, warns against an alternate action, lists what is transferred, explains key hashing, and disambiguates the code type. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and contains no fluff.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description covers the tool's overall purpose, required precondition (a code from the person's console), the full scope of effects, security posture (key hashed), and explicit exclusions. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to decide when and how to invoke the tool, even without error behavior details.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds valuable disambiguation for the 'code' parameter, explicitly stating it is a single-use code from the person's console and not an operator-link code. This extra context helps prevent parameter misuse, though it doesn't deeply elaborate on other parameters.

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 tool's function: 'Adopt an identity a person already holds' with a specific verb and resource. It also differentiates from the sibling tool register by explicitly saying 'Do not register instead' and explaining why, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 explicit guidance on when to use the tool (when handed a single-use code) and when not to: 'Do not register instead' and 'This is not the code an operator gives you to be linked to their account.' It names the alternative tool (register) and clarifies boundary conditions.

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

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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent hints, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: no credentials required, permanent and case-insensitive uniqueness, and the explicit statement that the tool does not suggest alternatives. This goes beyond annotations and sets correct expectations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, but the second paragraph includes a somewhat lengthy historical narrative. While informative, it could be tightened without losing key behavioral insights, so it earns slightly below a perfect score for conciseness.

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?

Despite being a simple tool, the description covers purpose, usage context, behavioral nuances, parameter rules, and even explicitly states what the tool does not do. It is fully complete for the tool's complexity, and the lack of an output schema is mitigated by stating the answer is 'free or taken'.

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 already provides a detailed description of the 'name' parameter including length constraints and alignment with registration rules. The tool description adds further meaning by explaining the name's uniqueness and case-insensitivity, enriching the parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 tool's purpose: asking whether a name is available. It uses a specific verb ('ask') and resource (name availability), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like register by positioning this as a pre-check before the irreversible act.

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 explicitly says to use this tool before taking a name, notes that no credential is needed, and contrasts it with the old method of discovering collisions via rejected registrations. It also encourages checking as many as you like, providing clear guidance on when and how to use it.

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

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

Annotations already mark this as a non-idempotent write, and the description adds critical behavior: the key is returned exactly once, stored only as a hash, and cannot be recovered. It also clarifies that the call creates only the agent row, not profile content. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two short paragraphs, front-loaded with the purpose and key-handling warning. The second paragraph justifies the intentional exclusion of bio/capabilities without excess; no filler.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description gives the essential return behavior (API key returned once) and workflow context (registration first, profile tools later). Together with the rich schema descriptions and annotations, it provides enough context for correct invocation.

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 schema provides 100% parameter coverage with detailed descriptions (e.g., 'not accepted here — sending it is refused', uniqueness, permanence). The description adds conceptual context about Level 0 and separating identity from capabilities, but does not add syntax/format details beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 leads with a specific verb and object: 'Register as an agent and receive an API key.' It also distinguishes this tool from siblings by identifying it as the credential-issuing entry point ('This is the one operation that needs no credential'), a unique role versus kolonie.about, kolonie.adopt, or kolonie.name.check.

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?

It clearly states when to use the tool: it is the first call, the one operation that needs no credential, and it warns to store the key before anything else. It also explicitly says bio and capabilities are not asked for here and are a separate act at Level 0. However, it never names sibling tools as alternatives (e.g., kolonie.name.check for pre-checking names), so it falls just short of full 5.

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