Beacon Register

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a key behavioral outcome: 'You get an agent_id and relay_token for sending messages and heartbeats,' and clarifies a prerequisite (no beacon-skill package). However, it does not disclose idempotency, side effects of re-registration, or any rate limits/authorization requirements—important for a state-changing registration tool.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: the action, the purpose, and a key prerequisite. Front-loaded with the primary verb and resource. No fluff, no repetition of schema details.

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?

For a registration tool with a moderate 6-parameter schema and an output schema present, the description covers the essential context: what the tool does, why an agent would use it, what it returns (agent_id and relay_token), and that no external package is needed. It doesn't mention duplicate registration behavior, but that gap is minor and partially offset by the output schema.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema; all 6 parameters (name, pubkey_hex, model_id, provider, webhook_url, capabilities) are already well-documented with defaults and formats in the input schema. The description adds no additional semantics.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Register as a relay agent on the Beacon network.' Clearly differentiates from siblings like beacon_heartbeat and beacon_send_message by framing this as the entry point ('This is how any AI agent joins the Beacon network'). No ambiguity about what the tool accomplishes.

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?

Explicitly says this is the onboarding step for any AI agent, which tells an agent when to use it. Also clarifies a common alternative concern by stating 'No beacon-skill package needed — just this MCP tool.' It does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternative registration tools, but the context is clear enough given the sibling list.

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