mqtt_register_handler

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the tool registers a handler, but omits critical behaviors: whether it overwrites existing handlers, if the JavaScript code is executed server-side, security implications, or persistence. This lack of transparency leaves the agent uninformed.

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 short sentence in Chinese, which is concise but not overly terse. It is front-loaded with the main verb and object. However, a slightly more informative description could improve without sacrificing conciseness.

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 complexity of registering a handler with executable code, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the handler's lifecycle, trigger mechanisms, return values, or error conditions. The schema covers parameter details but the description lacks essential operational context.

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 input schema already provides descriptions for all three parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional parameter context beyond what the schema offers. Thus, it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 '註冊 MQTT 訊息處理器' (Register MQTT message handler) clearly states the action and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like mqtt_subscribe, which might be confused with handler registration. The input schema further clarifies the purpose by specifying deviceId, action, and handlerCode.

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. No prerequisites, exclusions, or context for choosing this over mqtt_subscribe or mqtt_publish. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and schema.

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