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. It discloses one meaningful behavior — the name must not currently be held by another ACTIVE session — but does not say what happens on collision (error vs. reuse of an inactive name), whether re-registering overwrites, or whether the registration persists or needs authentication. Partial disclosure only.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence followed by a short Args block; every element earns its place. Slightly verbose in the German phrasing but no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For a one-parameter registration tool with no annotations, the description covers what it does, the naming constraint, and the purpose; the remaining gap is collision/failure 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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it defines the single parameter as a freely chosen display name, gives examples ('devops', 'backend-dev'), and states the uniqueness constraint against active sessions. That is real meaning beyond the bare 'Name' string type.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: it registers the current session under a chosen name in the Agent-Mailbox-System, and adds the purpose (so other sessions can send messages). That is clearly distinct from list_agents, send_message, check_inbox, reply and check_replies, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 'damit andere Sessions ihr Nachrichten schicken koennen' clause implies when you need this tool (to become addressable), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no reference to alternatives such as list_agents for checking existing names.

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