misakanet_register

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

With no annotations present, the description fully discloses side effects ('persists registration record'), error behavior ('Error cases: none'), authentication requirements ('Auth: none'), rate limits ('one registration per session'), and return fields. It also clarifies the token's role in subsequent calls, so the agent knows the consequence of invoking this tool. This goes well beyond minimal behavioral disclosure.

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 compact but information-dense: each sentence covers one distinct fact (purpose, local vs remote, token usage, input, output, errors, side effects, auth, rate limits). The main outcome is front-loaded in the first sentence, with operational details following in a logical order. No filler or 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?

For a one-optional-parameter tool with schema coverage at 100%, the description covers all needed decision factors: when to call, what to pass, what to expect back, and constraints (rate limit). It even provides output field names despite no formal output schema. An agent could invoke this with no further lookups.

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 input schema already documents agent_type with examples and the default, and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's restatement that agent_type is optional and defaults to 'unknown' adds no new information. It does tie the parameter to the returned output, but that is marginal.

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 precise action ('Register an agent') and the concrete outcome (node_id and token for remote MCP access). It immediately contrasts with local stdio MCP, distinguishing this tool from non-registration siblings. The purpose is unambiguous and does not require opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent when registration is needed ('For remote HTTP MCP, call this tool first') and when it is not ('Local stdio MCP ... does not need registration'). It also gives the follow-up step (pass token as user parameter), clarifying the operational context. This is more concrete than typical usage guidance.

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