register_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'draft' and the tool lifecycle but does not detail what happens upon registration (e.g., immediate visibility, approval required, side effects). It also lacks information on authorization needs or error conditions.

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 concise with two sentences. The first sentence states the primary purpose, and the second provides usage context. It is front-loaded and efficient, though it could be slightly more compact by removing redundancy.

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 complexity of 6 parameters (5 required), no annotations, and the existence of an output schema (not explained), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'draft' entails, the expected return value, or potential errors. Critical usage context is missing for an agent to use this tool correctly without additional knowledge.

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%, so the description must compensate. It implicitly lists parameters (name, description, language, code, tags, version) but does not explain their meaning, format, or constraints. There is a contradiction: the description says 'Python script' but the schema allows any language via a string parameter. This lack of detail and the inconsistency reduce clarity.

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 action 'register' and the resource 'a new reusable Python script as a draft ToolForge tool'. It distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., create vs. update/deprecate) by specifying 'new' and 'draft', and outlines the lifecycle purposes (review, approval, versioning, future reuse).

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 when to use: when an agent or user has created a useful script that should be saved for review, approval, etc. It implies this is for new scripts, but does not explicitly exclude updating existing tools or mention alternatives like update_tool. Still, it provides clear context.

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