List the FragGate registry

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds useful behavior context by defining the entry categories, noting entries are hashed, and warning 'Do not invent tools,' which reinforces that the listed names are authoritative. No contradiction with 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?

The description is three short sentences plus a reference URL, front-loads the primary action and scope, and contains no filler. The 'Do not invent tools' warning earns its place, and the kernel URL is compact optional context.

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?

For a parameterless list tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it names the resource, categories, and purpose. It does not detail the exact response shape, but 'List...entries' and 'Discover names' sufficiently convey what the agent will get from a simple registry listing.

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?

There are zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description does not need to document parameters; it also correctly implies no arguments are needed to list the registry.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('hashed registry entries') and distinguishes the action from siblings like fraggate_describe, fraggate_verify, and fraggate_call. It also states the entry categories (live/stub/local_only), leaving no ambiguity about what is listed.

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?

'Discover names' provides clear context for when to call this tool: when the agent needs to know what registry entries exist. It does not name alternatives or explicitly say when not to use it, but with zero parameters and a simple list purpose, the context is sufficient.

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