sentinel_register_server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose key side effects: the gateway will discover tools, fingerprint descriptions, and begin monitoring for drift. This is genuinely useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't describe failure modes (what happens if the URL is unreachable), whether re-registering an existing name overwrites or fails, or what the response shape is.

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, zero filler. The description is efficient and front-loaded with the core action. It conveys the essential behavioral effects without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, and it performs a registration with side effects (discovery, fingerprinting, drift monitoring). The description communicates these side effects well. However, given the lack of annotations and output schema, it could benefit from clarifying idempotency/re-registration behavior and the shape of a successful response. Still adequate for a reasonably understood registration operation.

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 100%, so both `name` and `url` have good descriptions in the schema itself (including an example for each). The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate per the guidance.

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+resource ("Register a new downstream MCP server with Sentinel Gateway") and clearly differentiates it from siblings like sentinel_list_servers and sentinel_call_tool. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from potential write operations like sentinel_reset_demo or sentinel_run_attack, though the registration framing is clear.

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 description implies this is an onboarding/setup operation, and the sibling list suggests sentinel_list_servers would follow to verify registration. However, there is no explicit 'when to use' guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., server must be running/reachable), and no exclusions or alternatives named.

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