agent_register

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It simply says 'register,' which implies a write operation, but does not disclose side effects like duplicate-name handling, permission requirements, idempotency, or failure behavior. This is minimal transparency.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the action and key inputs. It is concise with no redundant information, perfectly sized for quick comprehension.

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 the tool has 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse to be complete. It does not explain what 'register' returns, what happens on success/failure, or any constraints beyond the schema, leaving significant gaps for an agent to correctly invoke and interpret the result.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds limited value by grouping parameters as 'name, role, and optional A2A Agent Card metadata,' but it does not clarify formats, inter-dependencies, or the relationship between A2A metadata fields beyond what the schema already provides.

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 clearly identifies the tool's purpose: 'Register an agent in the mailbox system' with a specific verb and resource. It also lists the key inputs (name, role, optional A2A Agent Card metadata), which differentiates it from sibling tools like msg_send or a2a_submit_task.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when to avoid it. There is no mention of exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools such as msg_list_agents, making the usage context only implied by the tool name.

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