fleet_register

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a meaningful behavioral trait: 'safety_critical devices are excluded from fleet_write batches unless explicitly confirmed' and defines risk_tier values. However, it omits other important behaviors such as whether registration is idempotent, whether existing fleet entries are overwritten, or any permission requirements.

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: two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a focused note on risk_tier. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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?

With 6 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the core purpose and one key behavior but lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., whether the fleet must exist), parameter interactions, or how this tool fits with fleet_scan and fleet_write. The output schema handles return values, but other completeness gaps remain.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains risk_tier (with allowed values) and the three selection mechanisms (addresses, name_pattern, service_uuids), but does not explain scan_timeout_s, the 'name' parameter's role, or whether parameters are mutually exclusive. Partial compensation, but significant gaps remain.

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 purpose: 'Register a device or group (by explicit address list, or by name pattern / service UUIDs discovery filter) into a named fleet.' It provides specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes this from sibling tools like fleet_scan (discovery), fleet_read, and fleet_write.

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 implicitly provides usage context: use this to add devices/groups to a fleet, with alternative selection methods. It also references fleet_write behavior for safety_critical devices, giving a cross-tool guideline. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool or directly compare with other siblings.

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