register_agent

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

Annotations are all false, so the description carries the full burden. It goes beyond basic 'register' semantics by disclosing return values (id, slug, wire-up instructions), duplicate-slug rejection behavior, the 400 UNKNOWN_AGENT error, and the safety of re-registering with the same name. No annotation contradiction exists.

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 longer but every sentence earns its place. It front-loads the core purpose and return value, then adds the one-time usage rule, attachment rule, and error semantics in a clear labeled structure. No filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description explicitly names what is returned (id, slug, wire-up instructions). It also covers the critical workflow context: how to attach monitors, re-registration behavior, and error cases, making it complete for an agent to call this tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, providing baseline 3. The description adds valuable extra semantics for the name parameter: it derives a stable slug, duplicate slugs are rejected, and re-registering with the same name is safe. The description parameter is adequately covered by the schema's own description.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Register a new autonomous agent in the project's agent registry, returning its id, slug and wire-up instructions'. It also distinguishes itself from related tools by explicitly noting it is not an implicit create and by providing an attachment rule tied to create_monitor.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call this ONCE per autonomous worker, not once per monitor.' It also explains the exact relationship with create_monitor: pass the returned agent_id (id or slug) to create_monitor's agent_id parameter, and warns that naming a non-existent agent is an error and never an implicit create.

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