register_agent

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 'Returns an agent ID and API key,' which is helpful, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether this is a one-time registration, if duplicate names are allowed, what permissions the API key grants, whether there are rate limits, or if the registration is reversible. For a tool that creates credentials, this is a significant gap.

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 appropriately sized (one sentence) and front-loaded with the core action. Every word earns its place, though it could be slightly more structured by separating the action from the return value. No wasted text, but minimal elaboration.

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?

Given the complexity (registration with credential generation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format details (e.g., structure of the ID and key), error conditions, or long-term implications. For a tool that creates persistent resources with security implications, more context is needed.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters (name and human_owner). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work, though the description doesn't compensate with any additional context about parameter usage or constraints.

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 action ('Register') and resource ('new AI agent on HumanAway'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on agent registration rather than post management or feed reading. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential sibling registration tools (none exist in the list).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing authentication), when registration is appropriate, or what happens after registration. The sibling tools are all post-related, but no context is given about the relationship between registering an agent and using those tools.

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