merovingian_register

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The description indicates 'register' (write side effect) but does not detail what happens on success, whether existing registrations are rejected or overwritten, or what authorization is needed (e.g., filesystem write access to the given path). Since the tool performs a write operation, such information is important. The score is 3 because there is no contradiction with annotations (none exist), but the description is still somewhat incomplete about behavioral implications.

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 concise and structured well. The tool purpose is stated in a single sentence, followed by a clearly delineated parameter list. No extraneous text. However, it could be even more concise by avoiding the 'Args:' heading and using inline formatting, but this is a minor point. The overall readability is high.

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 3 parameters (only 2 required), no annotations, but a present output schema (which could provide return value details), the description does a reasonable job covering the inputs. However, it fails to mention what the tool returns (the output schema might cover that, but the description doesn't hint at it), and it doesn't clarify the link to other tools like merovingian_scan. For a registration tool, context like 'this is a prerequisite for scanning' is important completeness.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does a good job by listing all three parameters with explicit explanations: 'name: Unique name for the repository', 'path: Filesystem path to the repository root', 'contract_type: Contract type (optional, auto-detect if omitted)'. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema (which only has titles). The score is 4 (not 5) because the 'contract_type' values could be spelled out more clearly as an enum, but the current text is already helpful.

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 starts with a clear and specific verb+resource phrase: 'Register a repository for contract scanning.' This immediately distinguishes it from tool names like 'merovingian_scan' (which suggests scanning, not registration) and other siblings. The purpose is unmistakable and well-stated.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The tool is likely a prerequisite for 'merovingian_scan', but the description does not explain that. It also does not mention when you might want to skip registration (e.g., if the repo is already registered) or what happens if you re-register a repo (error vs. update). Context like 'only required once per repo' would be valuable.

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