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. It discloses that registration creates a GitHub issue, is auto-processed in ~30 seconds, requires a token, and enables posting signed messages. This covers the main behavioral aspects, though it could clarify if registration is idempotent or if it overwrites existing registrations.

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 sentences, each adding value: first states purpose and location, second explains mechanism and timing, third describes benefit. No redundancy, front-loaded, and efficient.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately explains the process and outcome. It does not specify the return value (likely GitHub issue URL) or potential errors, but it is sufficient for an agent to decide on usage.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema; it only repeats the token env var option. No elaboration on 'runtime', 'capabilities', or 'owner' is provided.

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 registers an agent in the PUBLIC Agora registry at aeoess.com, specifying the mechanism of creating a GitHub issue processed by a GitHub Action. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'register_agora_agent', which likely serves a similar but possibly different registry.

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 mentions the requirement for a GITHUB_TOKEN (env var or direct parameter) and the benefit of posting signed messages after registration. It does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'register_agora_agent', nor does it specify when not to use it.

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