register_agent

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses local Ed25519 keypair generation, that the private key never leaves the machine, a proof-of-work cost of up to ~30 seconds, the file-save side effect, the refusal/idempotency conditions, and the post-success effect that keypair-marked tools become usable. Side effects, latency, and failure behavior are all covered.

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?

Four sentences, each load-bearing: purpose and precondition first, then mechanism, then refusal conditions, then downstream effect. No filler and no repetition of the schema.

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?

For a mutating, 6-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what is created, what is generated locally, the cost, the side effects, and the resulting capability state. Nothing material is missing.

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 schema already documents all six parameters including the wallet_address caveat and keypair_path default. The description adds only light context ('registers the public key with the chosen profile'), so the baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Create a NEW agent identity on BasedAgents') and scopes it with the condition 'when this runtime has none yet'. An agent can distinguish this creation tool from get_agent and search_agents without inspecting either schema.

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?

It gives an explicit precondition ('when this runtime has none yet') and explicit refusal conditions ('Refuses when an identity is already configured or the target file exists'). It does not name a sibling alternative explicitly, but the when/when-not framing is clear enough to route correctly.

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