Find ACTIVE agents matching ALL requested capabilities (AND semantics), deterministically ordered by match count then reputation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| capabilities | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
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.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a distinct purpose: describe_agent for self-description, discover_agents for search, list_registrations for listing, register_agent for creation/update, resolve_agent for lookup, revoke_agent for soft deletion. No overlap.
All tools follow the verb_noun pattern: describe_agent, discover_agents, list_registrations, register_agent, resolve_agent, revoke_agent. Consistent and predictable.
6 tools is appropriate for an identity registry, covering all core operations without being excessive or insufficient.
The tool surface covers registration, resolution, discovery, listing, revocation, and self-description. The register_agent is idempotent, so updates are covered. No obvious gaps for the domain.