register_target

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context by stating 'secret-free' (no secret handling) and 'after boundary validation' (safety checks), which go beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as persistence, duplicate handling, or side effects, leaving some transparency 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. Every word is meaningful, with no redundancy or unnecessary detail. It is appropriately concise for the tool's complexity.

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 tool has 8 parameters and an output schema, the description provides minimal but adequate context. It covers the core action and key qualifiers but does not explain what 'boundary validation' entails or what the tool returns. The output schema likely covers return values, but the description could be more complete regarding prerequisites and expected behavior.

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 already having a detailed description (e.g., 'values are never stored' for env_names). The tool description does not add new parameter semantics beyond the mention of 'stdio or Streamable HTTP', which matches the transport parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 ('target'), and the scope ('stdio or Streamable HTTP'), with a specific qualifier ('secret-free', 'after boundary validation'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_targets, inspect_target, and run_target_tool, which operate on already-registered targets.

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 verb 'Register' implies this is for creating a new target, and the phrase 'after boundary validation' hints at a prerequisite. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives, no mention of exclusions, and no reference to sibling tools. Usage is implied but not clearly articulated.

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