AgentBase

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds valuable context beyond this by explicitly stating 'No authentication required' - which isn't covered by annotations. This provides important behavioral information about access requirements that the agent needs to know.

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 perfectly concise - two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second provides critical behavioral context. No wasted words or unnecessary elaboration.

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 read-only tool with no parameters and good annotations, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, authentication context, and reference use. The main gap is lack of information about the return format (though there's no output schema), but this is partially mitigated by mentioning it returns the 'full GraphQL schema'.

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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline would be 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since there are none, and the schema already fully documents the empty input structure.

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 ('Return') and resource ('full AgentBase GraphQL schema') with specific scope ('for reference'). It distinguishes from the only sibling tool (agentbase_setup) by focusing on schema introspection rather than setup operations.

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 about when to use this tool ('for reference') and mentions 'No authentication required' which helps with access considerations. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or provide alternatives to this introspection approach.

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 effectively describes key behaviors: it's a registration/mutation tool (implied by 'Register'), returns a bearer token, saves it automatically to MCP config, and requires no authentication. This covers most critical aspects, though it lacks details on error handling or rate limits.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded: it states the core purpose in the first clause, followed by key outcomes and constraints. Every sentence adds essential information with zero waste, making it highly efficient for an AI agent to parse.

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 (registration with 3 parameters) and no annotations or output schema, the description does a good job covering the core behavior and usage context. It explains the action, output (bearer token), side effect (saves to config), and authentication requirement. However, it doesn't detail the return format or potential errors, leaving some 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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how 'currentTask' or 'longTermGoal' relate to the registration process. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Register a new agent with AgentBase') and the resource ('agent'), distinguishing it from the sibling 'agentbase_introspect' which likely inspects rather than creates. It provides a complete picture of what the tool does beyond just the name/title.

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 states 'No authentication required,' which provides clear context for when to use this tool (when setting up a new agent without prior credentials). However, it doesn't mention when not to use it or explicitly compare it to the sibling tool 'agentbase_introspect,' which prevents a perfect score.

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