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. It does explain the mandatory ordering, side effects (context tracking, file locking, change attribution, session history), and the need to save the agent_id. It could disclose more about idempotency or error behavior, but overall it is transparent about its role.

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 front-loaded with the critical 'MANDATORY STEP 2' instruction and organized into sections (WHEN TO USE, WORKFLOW). It is slightly verbose but every section reinforces necessary context, and the structure aids navigation.

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 that there is no output schema and the tool is integrated into a multi-agent coordination workflow, the description provides all required context: prerequisites, sequential ordering, benefits, and follow-up action. It is complete for successful 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?

The input schema provides 100% parameter coverage with clear descriptions for agent_name, agent_type, capabilities, and version. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific meanings, though it does mention saving the returned agent_id. This matches the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 yourself as an agent in the CoordMCP system' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like start_context and get_agent_profile by establishing its place as the mandated second step in the workflow.

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 'WHEN TO USE' section explicitly lists scenarios such as at the start of every session or after reconnecting, and the workflow shows the exact sequence with create_project and start_context. It lacks an explicit 'when not to use' statement, but the mandatory context makes exclusions evident.

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