Registers a sub-agent under the calling agent in EVC Mesh for coordinated task handling. Supply a name, agent type, and optional capabilities.
Register a sub-agent under the calling agent.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Sub-agent name. | |
| agent_type | Yes | Agent type: claude_code, openclaw, cline, aider, custom. | |
| capabilities | No | Agent capabilities as key-value pairs. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the ownership relation ('under the calling agent'); it says nothing about whether re-registering the same name creates duplicates or overwrites, what happens to the capabilities object, or whether the registration persists across sessions.
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 front-loaded sentence with no waste, which is structurally clean. However the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness for a mutation tool with a three-parameter signature.
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 non-idempotent write tool with a nested capabilities object and no output schema, the description omits what registration returns, how duplicate names are handled, and any authorization requirements. The annotations cover safety hints but not the operational behavior an agent needs.
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%, so the schema already documents name, agent_type with its enumerated values, and the free-form capabilities object. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 states a specific verb and resource ('Register a sub-agent') and adds a scope qualifier ('under the calling agent'), which clarifies the parent-child relationship. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling list_sub_agents, but the action vs. listing distinction is inferable from the verb.
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?
There is no guidance on when to register a sub-agent versus other tooling, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as list_sub_agents or update_agent_profile. The agent must infer the usage context entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.