register_capability

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully reveals that failed validation leads to a refusal without writing and a 'next move' response. It does not, however, disclose success-path behavior, permission requirements, or whether entries are modifiable later, leaving important gaps.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the failure behavior and resulting response. Every phrase earns its place and there is 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?

Despite having an output schema, the definition leaves substantial gaps: no parameter semantics, no sibling differentiation, no guidance on what valid categories or evidence sections look like, and no success-path description. An agent would likely struggle to invoke this correctly without additional 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only alludes to 'required fields, classification, and evidence sections' without defining the four parameters (name, description, category, evidence_sections) or their validation criteria. This partial mapping does not compensate for the absent schema-level documentation.

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 ('adds a row') and resource ('capability ledger'), and adds refusal behavior. It is clear, but it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings such as record_positioning, so it does not reach a 5.

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 the use case (registering a capability entry) and gives a conditional rule: if required fields, classification, or evidence sections fail, refuse without writing and return the next move. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools or when not to use it.

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