get_remote_registry

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

No annotations are provided, but the verb 'Lists' strongly implies a read-only operation. The description discloses the categories of returned data, offering some transparency, yet it does not mention pagination, output format, or any side effects beyond the listing.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the verb and lists key items. It avoids unnecessary words, though the long list of terms could benefit from slight reordering for readability.

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 must explain what the tool returns and how parameters affect results. It lists categories like 'missing peers' and 'evidence coverage' but does not define them or clarify the impact of filters like 'include_unused', leaving a significant context gap.

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 input schema describes all four parameters (limit, offset, remote_name, include_unused) with explicit meanings, achieving 100% description coverage. The description adds no additional parameter context, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 the specific verb 'Lists' and identifies the resource as the remote registry, enumerating key data categories. It is clear enough but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_project_snapshot' or 'find_system'.

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. The description only states what it lists, with no mention of prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer applicability.

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