Register an agent's birth. Issues a content-addressed genesis certificate with a strictly monotone index (epoch 0 = the founding cohort). parent_id records lineage; children of recalled/quarantined parents are quarantined at birth. Idempotent — an agent is born once.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_id | Yes | ||
| parent_id | No | ||
| artifact_hash | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description effectively discloses key behaviors: idempotency, monotone index, lineage tracking, and quarantine propagation. It does not mention failure conditions or permissions, but the disclosed behaviors are clear and relevant.
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 three concise sentences with no unnecessary words. The first sentence immediately states the purpose, and subsequent sentences add essential details without redundancy.
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 moderate complexity and presence of an output schema, the description covers key concepts like idempotency and quarantine. However, it leaves artifact_hash unexplained, which slightly reduces completeness.
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 description explains agent_id and parent_id semantics ('records lineage') but omits any explanation for artifact_hash. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description should cover all parameters; it partially does, leaving one unclear.
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: 'Register an agent's birth.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'register_artifact' by specifying the action on agents rather than artifacts. The mention of 'genesis certificate' further clarifies its role.
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 usage for agent registration but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_certificate' or 'describe_agent'. It provides constraints (e.g., quarantine propagation) but lacks direct guidance on tool selection.
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 targets a distinct operation: describing, fetching, listing, registering, recalling, or verifying. No two tools overlap in purpose.
All tool names follow a verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., get_artifact, register_genesis, list_records), with only 'lineage' and 'recall' being single-word verbs but still consistent in style.
11 tools cover the agent provenance domain thoroughly without redundancy. The count is well-balanced for managing genesis, artifacts, and verification.
The tool surface covers creation, retrieval, listing, verification, and recall for both agents and artifacts. No obvious gaps for an immutable provenance system.