register_server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the outcome ('so it can be watched') but does not disclose side effects, whether registration is idempotent, whether the endpoint is validated at registration time, or how the apiKey is used. This is insufficient for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and object. It contains no filler or repetition, and every word contributes to conveying the core purpose.

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 absence of annotations and an output schema, and the bare-bones parameter schema, the description is the only source of contextual information. It covers the basic purpose but omits usage guidance, parameter meaning, and behavioral details, leaving significant gaps for an agent trying to decide when and how to invoke this tool.

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%, and the description does not explain any of the parameters. While 'name' and 'endpoint' are somewhat self-explanatory, 'apiKey' is ambiguous—the description does not clarify its purpose or whether it is required. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 verb ('Register'), a specific resource ('an MCP server'), and the intended outcome ('so it can be watched'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like discover_capabilities or request_action, none of which involve server registration.

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?

Usage is implied by the purpose: use this tool when you want to register an MCP server to be watched by NitroWatch. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it, prerequisites (e.g., endpoint reachability), or alternatives among the sibling tools.

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