Register analysis target

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so "Read-only: the artifact is never modified" largely restates them, though it usefully clarifies that only the artifact is untouched while registry state changes. It adds real behavioral detail with the validation steps (canonicalization, symlink policy, allowed roots) and SHA-256/format detection, which tells the agent registration can fail on rejected paths. It stops short of stating return values, idempotency on duplicate registration, or cost of hashing large directories.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the processing pipeline and the safety guarantee. Nothing is redundant and every clause carries information.

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?

For a simple two-parameter registration tool with annotations covering safety, the core behavior is covered, but with no output schema the agent still cannot tell what registration returns (a target identifier?) or whether re-registering the same path is idempotent. The unexplained "label" parameter leaves a real gap in an otherwise compact definition.

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 50%: "path" is documented but "label" is not, and the description never mentions label at all, so its purpose is undocumented in both places. The description does enrich the path parameter with validation semantics (allowed roots, symlink policy) beyond the schema's authorization note, which is genuinely additive.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Register a file or directory for analysis") and enumerates the operations performed. It distinguishes the tool from a pure analysis tool by framing registration as a distinct step, but it never names a sibling (e.g., vestige_analyze or vestige_get_target) to reinforce the boundary.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is a precursor step before analysis and that the operator must be authorized for the path. There is no explicit when-to-use versus when-to-use-something-else guidance, no stated prerequisites, and no note on what to do if a path is already registered.

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