registry / abi_catalog

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description still earns credit for disclosing a non-obvious behavioral trait: the ABI is 'reviewed' and 'partial', i.e. deliberately incomplete and curated, which warns the agent not to treat it as authoritative for a full build. No return format or ordering details are given.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence stating what is returned followed by the key caveat. No filler, no restatement of the title, and the most decision-relevant information (partial, read-only, not full build) comes first.

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?

With no parameters and strong annotations, most of the burden is lifted, but there is no output schema and the description says little about the shape of the returned catalog (format, keying, how topics and signatures are grouped). For a zero-arg lookup tool it is adequate but leaves the agent guessing about return structure and freshness.

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 takes zero parameters and the schema is an empty object with additionalProperties false, so there is nothing to document. Baseline 4 applies; nothing in the description adds or detracts from parameter understanding.

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?

States a concrete verb ('Return') and resource ('reviewed partial read-only ABI signatures and verified Vault event topics'), so an agent knows what comes back. It also negates the wrong expectation ('not a full exact build ABI'). It does not, however, distinguish itself from the close sibling registry.abi_selector, so a reader cannot fully disambiguate the two from this text alone.

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 exclusion 'not a full exact build ABI' implies when this is the wrong choice, but there is no positive statement of when to reach for it or which sibling (e.g. registry.abi_selector, registry.verify_contract) to use instead. Usage is only inferable from the caveat.

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