Read FDE deliverables and register enterprise SubAgents, optionally previewing with dry-run or targeting specific nodes.
读取 FDE 交付物，注册企业 SubAgent。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dry_run | No | 只预览不真正注册，默认 false | |
| node_filter | No | 只激活指定节点（默认全部） |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It says 'register', implying a state-changing operation, but does not mention consequences, reversibility, required permissions, or the significance of the dry_run option. The risk profile is only hinted at through the parameter schema.
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 a single concise sentence with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. However, it is terse enough that some meaning is lost, particularly for readers unfamiliar with FDE deliverables and enterprise SubAgents.
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?
The tool has no annotations and no output schema, so contextual completeness depends heavily on the description. The description does not define key domain terms, explain what activation means, or clarify how dry_run and node_filter affect the outcome. An agent could select the tool but would need external knowledge to call it confidently.
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%, and the parameter descriptions already explain dry_run and node_filter. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 states a specific action: reading FDE deliverables and registering an enterprise SubAgent. This is distinct from sibling tools like workflow_submit or fde_deploy, but it leaves the relationship between 'activating a workflow' and these actions implicit.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as workflow_submit, workflow_create, or fde_deploy. No conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided, so an agent must infer usage from the name and schema alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.