credence_register

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states that registered values are 'UNVERIFIED until explicitly confirmed,' which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not mention other behaviors like return value, side effects, or required permissions, leaving some gaps.

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?

Two sentences: first defines the action, second provides usage guidelines. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with purpose. Each sentence earns its place.

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 the tool's low complexity (3 params, no enums, output schema exists), the description covers purpose, usage, and behavioral note. It is complete enough for an agent to decide when to use this tool and what to expect. Minor omission: no mention of error cases or handling of duplicate registrations, but not critical.

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 schema describes all three parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds value by recommending 'exact quote preferred' for the content parameter, which is actionable guidance beyond the schema. It does not add much for session_id or source_type, but the schema already defines them well.

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 registers an uncertain constraint in the epistemic registry, distinguishing it from siblings like `credence_verify` and `credence_autoverify` which handle verification. The verb 'register' and resource 'epistemic registry' are specific and unambiguous.

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 explicitly says to use when the user states something uncertain and provides concrete examples (unconfirmed vendor claim, assumption, 'I think' statement, number from quick search). While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use, the context implies it should not be used for certain facts, and siblings cover other cases.

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