register_directory

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the tool returns immediately while the daemon records the registration in the background, and that sync will happen automatically. It does not cover edge cases like duplicate registrations or missing paths, but the async return behavior is valuable context.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-line purpose, a one-line behavioral note, and a concise parameter list. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant or vague 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?

For a simple two-parameter registration tool, the description is largely complete: it states the purpose, the async behavior, and the meaning of each parameter. It could add preconditions like directory existence or what happens when the same directory is registered twice, but the essential invocation details are present.

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%, so the description must explain the parameters. The Args section adds meaningful semantics: directory must be an absolute path, and collection defaults to the directory name when empty. This goes well beyond the bare schema.

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 that the tool tracks a local directory so future changes sync automatically. It identifies the resource ('local directory') and the purpose, and is easily distinguished from siblings like deregister_directory and sync_all_registrations, though it does not 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?

'Use to track a local directory so future changes sync automatically' provides clear context for when this tool applies. It does not explicitly discuss when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the purpose is stated directly enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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