Return the registry routing map: for each entity kind, the set of public registries the expansion agent would consult. Pure, local, no input, no PII. Use it to understand coverage before requesting an (authenticated) expansion.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Although no annotations are provided, the description fully discloses behavior: 'Pure, local, no input, no PII.' This conveys that the tool is safe, side-effect-free, and does not handle sensitive data, providing the transparency an agent needs without relying on annotations.
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?
Two sentences: the first states the primary purpose, the second provides important context and usage guidance. Every word earns its place, with no fluff 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?
The description clearly explains the return value (routing map per entity kind) and the tool's non-sensitive, local nature. For a parameterless, read-only tool, this fully covers the essential information an agent needs.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly notes 'no input,' and no additional parameter explanation is necessary.
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 returns the registry routing map, detailing it as a mapping from entity kind to public registries the expansion agent would consult. This is a specific verb+resource description that fully conveys the tool's function without ambiguity.
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 explicitly guides when to use the tool: 'Use it to understand coverage before requesting an (authenticated) expansion.' This gives clear context and implies the tool is for pre-checking, distinguishing it from the expansion operation itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Only one tool exists, so there is no possibility of confusing it with others. The purpose is clearly unique.
The single tool uses a clear verb_noun pattern (describe_routing), which is consistent. With only one tool, there is no inconsistency.
One tool feels thin for a server named 'Registry Expansion Routing', as it only describes routing and does not include expansion or modification operations. However, the scope might be intentionally narrow.
The tool only provides a read-only view of routing coverage. There are no tools to actually perform expansion, update routing, or handle authentication, leaving significant operational gaps.