get_data_registry_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds non-obvious behavior beyond them: item_names reflects only cached items and is empty pre-initialization, and null source slots are skipped. These are meaningful disclosures a caller would not infer from annotations alone.

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?

Front-loads the purpose then adds caveats, which is well-structured. Minor redundancy: the opening sentence lists the same fields (registry_type, item_struct, initialized, sources, item_names) that the Returns block repeats with types.

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 output schema, the description carries the full burden and does so properly, spelling out the complete return shape including nested source fields and counts. Combined with the initialization caveat and sibling contrast, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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 is only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, with the schema itself documenting registry_path format and example. The description adds no additional syntax or constraints for the parameter, so this sits at the baseline where the schema does the work.

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 specific verb (Read) and resource (UDataRegistry asset) and enumerates exactly what is returned (registry_type, item_struct, initialized, sources, item_names). It also differentiates itself from siblings by naming initialize_data_registry and get_data_registry_source_count, so an agent can distinguish it without opening other schemas.

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?

Gives real context: item_names stays empty until initialization, and it points to initialize_data_registry for that step, plus contrasts its null-slot behavior with get_data_registry_source_count. There is no explicit 'use this instead of X when Y' statement, but the conditions that make the output meaningful are clear.

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