spyglass_get_registries

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behaviors. It mentions optional search but fails to state whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or has pagination. Important behavioral traits like data freshness or rate limits are omitted.

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 extremely concise—two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the primary action, and the second adds supporting context. Every word contributes meaning, making it efficient for an AI agent to parse.

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's moderate complexity (3 parameters) and lack of output schema, the description provides basic operational info but misses details like return format or pagination. It is adequate for simple invocation but not fully comprehensive.

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%, so each parameter is already well-described. The description adds examples for the registry parameter, but these largely repeat the schema's examples. The mention of 'many more' and the search param note add minimal value beyond the schema.

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: 'Get registry entries for a Minecraft version.' It lists supported registries like item, block, entity_type, etc., making the resource specific. The verb 'Get' and the resource 'registry entries' are unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the sibling tools include other 'get' tools like spyglass_get_block_states, the description does not differentiate usage contexts. The agent receives no hints about when to choose this over other tools.

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