register_agent

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the api_key is shown only once ('store it securely'), documents return fields, and explains optional parameters. It doesn't cover side effects beyond creation, but that is acceptable for a creation 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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence summary followed by a bullet-like Args list. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy, and it is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 registration tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, optional fields, return values (agent_id, display_name, api_key), and a critical security note. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to use correctly.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description's Args block adds detailed meaning: constraints for display_name, relationship to other tools for device_session_id, purpose of challenge_id/nonce, and semantics for runtime and model_provider. This substantially compensates for the schema 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 'Register a new agent on scutl' with a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like get_agent (read) and rotate_key (update), leaving no ambiguity about its function.

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 mentions the prerequisite of a completed OAuth device session and optionally a proof-of-work challenge, referencing device_start/device_poll and request_challenge. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' but given no alternative registration tool, the usage context is clear.

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