agent-identity-registry

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. However, it only states 'Fleet-standard self-description,' offering no information about side effects, required permissions, rate limits, or response characteristics.

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?

While the description is extremely short, it is not constructive. It lacks any structure (e.g., no sentences, no guidance) and fails to convey substantive information. Conciseness should not sacrifice clarity; here it results in under-specification.

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 simplicity of the tool (no parameters) and presence of an output schema, the description could still provide context about what the tool returns. It does not, leaving agents without a clear understanding of the tool's role in the system.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema coverage is 100% by default. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, but the baseline for a tool with no parameters is 4, as there is little to improve upon.

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 'Fleet-standard self-description' is vague and essentially restates the tool name. It does not clearly specify what the tool does, e.g., whether it returns metadata, capabilities, or configuration of the agent. Compared to siblings like 'discover_agents' or 'resolve_agent', it fails to differentiate its purpose.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'discover_agents' or 'list_registrations'. The description does not indicate any prerequisites, exclusions, or contexts where this tool is appropriate.

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 discloses key behaviors: it only returns active agents, uses AND matching, and orders by match count then reputation deterministically. This covers essential aspects, though it omits details like pagination, error handling, or reputation definition.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality. It is concise but not overly terse, sacrificing some detail for economy.

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 tool's simplicity (2 params, output schema exists), the description covers the essential matching and ordering logic. It does not mention potential edge cases or error behaviors, but for a search tool this is adequate.

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. However, it only mentions capabilities without explaining format or semantics, and does not describe the limit parameter. The agent receives no added meaning beyond the raw 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 finds ACTIVE agents matching ALL requested capabilities with AND semantics, and orders them deterministically by match count then reputation. This specific verb+resource and logic distinguishes it from sibling tools like describe_agent or register_agent.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_registrations or resolve_agent. The usage is implied but not clarified, leaving the agent to infer the 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It only states 'List', implying read-only, but lacks details on pagination, ordering, permissions, or any side effects.

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 that is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words. Every part is informative.

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 simplicity of the tool (one optional parameter, output schema present), the description covers the core behavior. It could mention the output type but is not required since output schema exists. Slight lack of guidance on listing all vs. filter boundary.

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 has 0% coverage for the parameter 'status', so the description adds crucial meaning by specifying it filters by status and provides possible values 'ACTIVE|REVOKED'. This compensates for the schema's lack of description.

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 verb 'List' and resource 'registrations', and mentions optional filtering by status. It is distinct from sibling tools like register_agent or revoke_agent which are mutations.

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 using this tool when you need to list registrations, possibly filtered, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or when not 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?

The description discloses idempotency and the return type (DID). However, with no annotations, it fails to mention permissions, side effects on repeated use, or how updates affect existing data.

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 concise with two front-loaded sentences. However, it could briefly list key parameters for better scannability.

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 7 parameters and 2 required, the description omits parameter details and usage context. An output schema exists but is not referenced; the description mentions the return DID, which helps.

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%, but the description adds constraints for 'capabilities' (non-empty, lowercase). No other parameters (e.g., agent_id, name) are described, leaving significant gaps.

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 registers or idempotently updates an agent identity and returns a deterministic DID. It distinguishes from sibling tools like describe_agent or revoke_agent by focusing on creation and update.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., discover_agents, resolve_agent). No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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 provided. Description implies a read-only lookup but does not confirm idempotency, side effects, or rate limits. Lacks detail on behavior beyond the basic operation.

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?

Single sentence, no extra words. Adequate but not structured to highlight key information like parameter choices or output context.

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 an output schema (not shown), the description does not mention what the output contains. Parameter documentation is absent. The tool is simple but still incomplete for an AI agent to use confidently.

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 has 0% description coverage. The description only mentions parameters by name ('agent_id or DID') but does not explain their semantics, constraints, or when each should be used. Adds almost no value over 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?

Description states it resolves an identity to its full public registration via agent_id or DID. The verb 'resolve' and resource 'identity registration' are specific, but does not distinguish from sibling 'describe_agent' which may provide similar details.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like describe_agent or discover_agents. No mention of prerequisites, alternatives, or exclusions.

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?

Discloses that the identity disappears from discovery but record is retained for auditability, which adds behavioral context. However, without annotations, more details (e.g., irreversibility, side effects, permissions) would improve transparency.

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?

Single sentence with a parenthetical aside; no wasted words. Could be slightly restructured for clarity, but overall efficient.

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?

Explains the auditability outcome but lacks details on return values (output schema exists but not described), idempotency, or behavior on already-revoked agents.

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%, and the description does not explain the 'did' or 'agent_id' parameters, their roles, or how to use them. This is a major gap.

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 'Revoke an identity' and explains the effect (disappears from discovery but record retained). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like register, describe, or resolve.

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 guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like register_agent or describe_agent. Does not mention prerequisites or scenarios where revocation is inappropriate.

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