agent_register

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that the tool only creates a DB record and does not start an agent process, but lacks details on error handling, idempotency, side effects, or access restrictions. The core behavior is explained, but additional behavioral context is missing.

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 concise and front-loaded with a warning. However, it repeats the message in Chinese and English, which introduces slight redundancy. Overall, it is well-structured and easy 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 that an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. The description covers the tool's purpose and limitations adequately for a tool that is discouraged from use. However, it does not specify when it might be appropriate to use it internally or provide details on required permissions or side effects.

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 parameters. The description adds no additional semantics or context beyond what is in the schema, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 function: it only creates a DB record for agent registration. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the recommended alternative (CC's Agent tool) and explains what it does not do (spawn a real subprocess).

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 explicit usage guidelines: 'INTERNAL USE ONLY', do not call this MCP tool, and instead use CC's Agent tool. It explains the rationale by contrasting the behavior of the two tools, making it clear when this tool should not be used.

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