register_agent

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 includes type, trust level, and capabilities, but lacks details on side effects (e.g., overwriting, idempotency), authentication needs, or what happens upon duplicate agentId. This is adequate but leaves behavioral gaps.

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?

A single sentence with a comparative clause, front-loaded with the core action. No unnecessary words or repetition. Every part 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?

Given the schema fully documents parameters and the description provides purpose and differentiation, the definition is fairly complete. No output schema exists, but that is acceptable. Minor missing context about persistence or effects, but not critical.

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 has 100% description coverage for all 4 parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds a summary phrase ('identity metadata with type, trust level, and capabilities') but does not provide additional meaning beyond the schema's individual descriptions.

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 for multi-agent operations with identity metadata, using a specific verb 'register' and resource 'agent identity'. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool set_agent_role by contrasting registration vs role profile application.

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 differentiates from set_agent_role ('Unlike set_agent_role...'), providing clear guidance on when to use this tool over the alternative. However, it does not explicitly state scenarios where this tool should not be used or prerequisites.

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