agent_register

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 registration doesn't require tunneling ('Tidak perlu tunnel') and uses permanent Cloudflare Workers relay, which adds useful operational context. However, it doesn't cover authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens on repeated registration attempts.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized. It uses three concise sentences that each earn their place: (1) core purpose, (2) usage requirement, (3) technical implementation detail. The Args/Returns sections are clearly labeled and minimal.

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 this is a critical initialization tool with no annotations but with an output schema (returns JSON status), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the mandatory first-call nature, technical implementation (Cloudflare Workers), and basic parameter/return info. However, for a registration tool that likely has side effects, more behavioral context about what registration entails would be beneficial.

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%, but the description provides some parameter information in the 'Args' section: 'params: name (opsional)' which matches the single parameter. However, it doesn't explain the structure of 'params' as an object containing 'name', nor does it clarify what happens when name is null versus provided. The baseline is 3 since there's minimal parameter documentation.

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 tool's purpose: 'Daftarkan agent ke AgentLink' (Register agent to AgentLink). It specifies a specific verb ('register') and resource ('agent'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'agent_list' or 'capability_upsert_self' beyond the mandatory first-call requirement.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Wajib dipanggil pertama' (Must be called first). This clearly indicates when to use this tool versus alternatives - it's a prerequisite initialization step before other agent operations.

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