register_agent

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses the critical warning that the key is shown only once and must be saved immediately, which is essential for the agent to avoid losing access. It also mentions the 500 starting credits. It doesn't specify idempotency or failure behavior, but the key warning is a significant and non-obvious trait, so this is a strong 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?

Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence conveys purpose and outcomes, and the second delivers a crucial warning. Information is front-loaded: the action and result come first, and the caveat is immediate. Every word 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?

The tool has low complexity (2 params, no output schema, no annotations). The description explains what is returned (key and credits) and the critical warning. It doesn't mention idempotency or error handling (e.g., what happens if name already exists), but for a registration tool this is likely acceptable. The description covers the essential operational facts, making it reasonably complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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 50% (only 'ref' has a description; 'name' has only a pattern). The tool description does not elaborate on either parameter. It does not explain what 'name' represents beyond a pattern, nor does it add value to 'ref' beyond the schema. Since coverage is not high and the description doesn't compensate, this is a weak area. A simple note like 'name is a unique identifier for your agent' would have improved it.

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 clear verb (register) and resource (agent), and specifies the outcome (key and 500 credits). It is distinct from sibling tools like my_profile or list_skills, which serve different purposes. The purpose is unmistakable.

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 clearly indicates when to use this tool (to register an agent), and there are no competing tools for this operation. However, it doesn't explicitly state that this is a one-time setup or provide exclusions, so while the context is clear, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it. Still, the purpose is unambiguous, so it earns a 4.

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