register_tool

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of disclosing side effects. It says 'explicitly publish' but does not state whether this makes the callable immediately invokeable, whether it overwrites existing registrations, or what happens if the callable is not 'supported'. There is no mention of permissions, failure modes, or the nature of the 'live' behavior.

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 sentence, which is concise, but the wording is cryptic and lacks structure. It does not front-load the most useful information, and the meaning is obscured by excessive modifiers, making it less effective than a clear, concise sentence would be.

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 that the tool has 3 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description provides almost no context. It fails to explain what the tool returns, what constitutes a 'supported' callable, or any behavioral expectations. This is inadequate for a tool that performs a registration action.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description should compensate by explaining the parameters. It does not mention 'name', 'tool_name', or 'description' at all. The phrase 'one supported ... callable' vaguely hints that 'name' might be the callable's identifier, but it leaves all parameter semantics undefined.

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 uses the verb 'publish' and mentions a 'callable' as the resource, which clearly indicates registration. However, the phrase 'supported top-level synchronous live callable' is filled with jargon and does not clarify what 'supported' means or what 'top-level' refers to, making the purpose less clear than it could be.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list', 'execute', 'remove', or 'unregister_tool'. The description does not mention any prerequisites, nor does it explain situations where this tool should be avoided.

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