登记实验输出文件

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

The description goes beyond annotations by stating that it does not modify result files and does not allow reading files outside the workspace. This is valuable safety context. However, it does not mention whether registration is idempotent or what happens on repeated calls, though idempotentHint=false is already provided.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and immediately followed by important safety constraints. Every word earns its place; there is no verbosity or redundancy.

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 tool has 4 parameters and an output schema, the description provides only the core action and two key constraints. It lacks parameter semantics and any process context (e.g., when to call relative to other tools), but the output schema and annotations fill some gaps. The description is minimally viable but leaves the agent to infer parameter usage.

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%, and the description provides no parameter-level details. The parameter names (path, label, metadata, session_id) are somewhat self-explanatory, but the tool description does not clarify constraints like path being workspace-relative or the format of metadata. The description fails to compensate for the low 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 the tool registers result files already generated in the experiment workspace and computes a hash. It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from the sibling 'envi_classic_register_inputs' by targeting outputs. This is a clear, specific purpose.

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 implies usage for result files that have already been generated in the workspace, which differentiates it from input registration. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full guidance.

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