register_agora_public

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently describes the side effect of creating a GitHub issue, the auto-processing delay (~30 seconds), the auth requirement, and the post-registration capability. This is excellent disclosure for an agent, covering side effects, timing, authorization, and consequences.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Each sentence provides distinct value: registry location, mechanism and timing, auth requirement, and outcome. There is no redundancy or wasted words.

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 description covers the overall process, requirements, and outcome. However, since there is no output schema, it does not specify what the tool returns (e.g., issue URL or status), which might be important for an agent orchestrating next steps. Still, given the moderate complexity and absence of annotations, the description is substantially complete.

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%, with each parameter described in the schema. The description adds minimal extra semantics, mostly repeating the token env var option already present in the schema. It does not introduce any parameter-level nuance beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose: registering an agent in the PUBLIC Agora registry at aeoess.com. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'register_agora_agent' by emphasizing the public registry and the specific mechanism (GitHub issue auto-processed by a GitHub Action). The outcome is also mentioned (ability to post signed messages), providing a complete picture.

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 provides clear context on how to use the tool: it requires a GITHUB_TOKEN env var or direct token parameter, and explains the async process. It does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives, but the emphasis on 'PUBLIC' and the presence of a sibling 'register_agora_agent' imply a distinction. This qualifies as clear context with no explicit exclusions.

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