bus_register

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the action ('register or update') but does not disclose side effects, whether it is idempotent, or what happens on conflict. No mention of permissions or impact on existing agents.

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 a single, focused sentence with no redundant words. It clearly states the action and subject without unnecessary elaboration, earning full marks for conciseness.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple registration tool but lacks contextual details such as return values, error conditions, or how it fits with sibling tools. It gives the core purpose but not enough for an agent to fully anticipate outcomes.

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 coverage is 100% with each parameter having a description. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate. It does not clarify relationships between parameters (e.g., doorbell_type vs doorbell_target).

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 verb 'Register or update' is specific, and the object 'agent's identity and doorbell configuration on the bus' clearly describes the tool's function. It distinguishes from siblings like bus_send or bus_list_agents by focusing on registration, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 siblings (e.g., bus_list_agents for listing). It does not mention prerequisites, idempotency, or scenarios where registration is needed, leaving usage implied at best.

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