AgentsKit Registry

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a read-only retrieval (implied by 'Get') and specifies the exact components included in the response (metadata, env, skill, source files). It does not describe error handling, authentication, or side effects, but the return content is a meaningful behavioral disclosure.

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, compact sentence with the primary verb upfront. It enumerates the bundle components efficiently without any redundancy, earning its place for each word.

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 one-parameter get tool, the description provides the core purpose and lists the response contents. However, with no output schema or annotations, it lacks behavioral details such as error responses or permission requirements, and the response structure is only implied, leaving some gaps for an agent.

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 only a string parameter 'id' with no description (0% coverage). The description adds that this is for 'one agent', clarifying that 'id' is the agent identifier. It does not provide format constraints or guidance on obtaining the id, but for a single parameter, this is sufficient.

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 specifies the action (Get), the target resource (full bundle for one agent), and enumerates the bundle contents (metadata, env, skill, source files). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_agents or search_agents, which would not provide the full bundle.

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 this tool is for retrieving the complete data for a single agent, contrasting with list_agents (overview) and search_agents (filtered). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the output content ('install command and a usage snippet') but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, any side effects, permissions, rate limits, or output format. This leaves agents without important behavioral context.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action ('Get'), and contains no redundant information. It is concise and well-structured, earning top marks for efficiency.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides a minimal but functional overview. However, it lacks information about the output structure, potential errors, or prerequisites for the id, leaving gaps that could cause misuse. It is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 defines a single required string 'id' with no description (0% coverage). The description's 'for an agent' implies that 'id' refers to an agent identifier, adding some meaning. However, it does not specify how to obtain the id, any format constraints, or examples, so the description only partially compensates for the schema's lack of context.

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 'Get the exact install command and a usage snippet for an agent' clearly states a specific verb (Get) and resource (install command and usage snippet) with a clear scope (for an agent). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_agent, list_agents, and search_agents, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 the tool should be used when needing an install command for a particular agent, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like get_agent or search_agents, nor does it provide exclusions or contextual guidance. Usage guidance is present only by implication.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It states the core behavior (list all, filter by category) but omits details such as pagination, permissions, or whether results are summaries or full objects. Acceptable but with 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?

One concise sentence (12 words) that front-loads the action and includes the key optional behavior. No wasted words.

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 list tool with one optional parameter, the description covers the main purpose and parameter semantics. It omits return value details, but the absence of an output schema makes this less critical. Complete enough for a low-complexity tool.

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 defines 'category' only as a string with no description. The description adds meaning by explaining it as an optional filter, significantly enhancing the agent's understanding beyond the bare 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?

Clearly states 'List all agents in the AgentsKit registry' – a specific verb and resource. Differentiates from siblings like get_agent (fetches single) and search_agents (targeted search) by explicitly indicating it lists all.

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?

Provides clear usage context: use to list all agents, optionally filtered by category. However, does not explicitly mention when to prefer it over search_agents or get_agent, though the purpose itself implies the distinction.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. While it lists the search dimensions, it does not disclose what the tool returns (e.g., a list of agents, full details), whether it is a read-only operation, or any pagination or permission constraints. The description is too thin to fully inform the agent about behavioral outcomes.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and enumerates the search filters. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or 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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the main source of context. It adequately describes the search functionality but omits information about the return format, result limits, or how it relates to list_agents. For a simple search tool, this is minimally sufficient but leaves 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does by naming each parameter's role: 'free-text query' maps to query, 'category' to category, 'tag' to tag, and 'runnable flag' to runnable. This adds meaning beyond the bare parameter names, though it lacks specific value formats or examples.

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: 'Search agents by free-text query, category, tag, or runnable flag.' It uses a specific verb ('search') and identifies the resource ('agents') and the filtering dimensions. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_agent (specific agent retrieval) and list_agents (listing all agents).

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 on what the tool does, implying it should be used when filtering agents by criteria such as query, category, tag, or runnable status. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like list_agents or get_agent, nor does it provide exclusions. It is clear but lacks explicit when-not guidance.

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