reregister

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries behavioral disclosure. It states the operation writes only when something has moved, says it is safe to call at any time, and describes what it returns: the current session id and the replaced one if it drifted. This is unusually complete side-effect and safety information.

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?

Three dense, purposeful sentences: purpose, trigger conditions, return values, and safety. Every clause contributes; no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 there is no output schema, the description compensates by naming the return values. It also covers when to call, why it is safe, and the side-effect boundary. An agent has everything needed to decide and invoke correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so the baseline is 4. There is no parameter meaning for the description to add; nothing is undocumented or ambiguous.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Re-publish this session's Tin Can registration'. The purpose is clear — make the session visible to peers so they can reply. It is distinct from siblings like send_peer and message_log, which serve different communication roles.

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?

Gives explicit trigger conditions: call it when a peer reports the session as unreachable, or when an arriving message claims no send_peer exists. It also clarifies that the claim is a symptom of a stale registration, preventing misrouting to send_peer. This is strong when-to-use guidance.

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