register_ref

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 mentions the benefit (O(1) lookups) but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether existing refs are overwritten, idempotency, error states, or authorization requirements.

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 a single concise sentence that conveys essential information without any unnecessary words or structure. It is 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 is adequate but lacks details on return values, error handling, and behavior in edge cases (e.g., duplicate aliases). It covers the core action but leaves gaps for an agent's correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add new meaning beyond the schema; the schema already describes each parameter adequately. No further elaboration 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 action ('register'), the resource ('stable alias (ref)'), and the purpose ('pointing to an entity name in the RefIndex for O(1) lookups'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'resolve_ref' and 'deregister_ref'.

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 implies the tool is used when you need to create a new mapping from an alias to an entity, but it does not explicitly provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when an alias already exists) or any prerequisites.

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