register_worker

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool registers a worker, but does not disclose whether it mutates state, whether it is idempotent, what happens if a worker already exists, or any side effects like creating a session or sending messages. This is a significant gap for a registration tool.

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 two sentences long and front-loads the core purpose. The first sentence states the verb and resource clearly. All sentences are informative without redundancy. Slightly could be improved by structuring the list of fields more succinctly, but it's efficient.

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 tool with 11 parameters, 2 required, no output schema, and 18% schema coverage, the description is insufficiently complete. It identifies the core purpose and important fields but omits behavioral implicationsholistically, such as how registration interacts with the workflow lifecycle, what the workflow_id refers to, or what the return value is. It's adequate for a basic understanding but leaves gaps for correct invocation.

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 only 18%, so the description must compensate for the many undocumented parameters. It does mention key fields (model, agent_id, prompt, dimension, role) and the purpose of binding_token indirectly via the schema description, but it doesn't explain important parameters like coverage_notes, metadata, or status. The description adds some context but not enough to fully bridge the gap.

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 states the tool registers a delegated worker/agent inside a workflow, with specific roles (finder, verifier, synthesizer, executor) and mentions including model, agent_id, prompt, dimension, and role. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like spawn_workers or complete_worker, though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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 clear guidance to use one worker per finder/verifier/synthesizer/executor, and to include audit information. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, but the context of 'delegated worker' within a workflow is clear enough to infer appropriate usage.

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