register

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool adds or updates a card if the name exists, which implies idempotency-like behavior. However, it omits details on return value, side effects, or required permissions.

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 short and includes both English and German, but the dual language adds minimal overhead. The purpose is front-loaded. Every sentence adds value.

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-param tool with output schema, the description covers the basic operation. However, it lacks context on when to use this vs other tools and does not explain the output or error conditions. Adequate but not complete.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description reads 'Args: card_json: JSON-String der Server Card', explaining the parameter format and purpose. This adds beyond the schema (which only shows type string), but lacks depth on valid JSON 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 action: 'Register a server card in the local index' and explains it adds or updates with the same name. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'generate_card' (which likely creates a new card from scratch) and 'search' (which retrieves).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs siblings like 'discover', 'search', or 'validate_card'. Lacks context such as prerequisites (e.g., a server must exist) or when updating is preferred.

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