register_directory

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key async trait: 'Returns immediately — the daemon records the registration in the background.' However, it does not say whether re-registering an already-tracked directory is an error or a no-op, whether the path must exist, or what permissions are needed.

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 behavioral note about immediate return is front-loaded ahead of parameter documentation, and the Args block is compact with no filler. Slightly verbose for two parameters but nothing that fails to earn its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and both parameters are covered. For a state-mutating, un-annotated registration tool, though, gaps around idempotency and failure conditions leave the agent without enough to predict error behavior.

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 compensate, and it largely does: 'directory' is constrained to an absolute path, and 'collection' is documented including its empty-value default behavior (sanitized directory name). Only edge cases such as invalid or duplicate collection names go unmentioned.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('track a local directory so future changes sync automatically'), which tells an agent exactly what the call accomplishes. It implicitly contrasts with the sibling deregister_directory but never names it, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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 purpose clause implies when to use it (you want automatic future syncing of a local directory), but there is no explicit 'use this instead of X' or when-not guidance despite siblings like deregister_directory and sync_all_registrations existing. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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