get_registry

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns file contents, implying a read-only operation with no side effects. However, it does not explicitly mention permissions, error handling, or confirm lack of destructive impact, leaving some ambiguity about behavior.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes necessary details about the file path and contents. Every word adds value, with no fluff or repetition.

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 simple tool with one parameter, the description provides complete context: what the tool does (returns registry contents), how to use it (scanName param with example), and what the return structure is (map of locators). No output schema exists, but the description adequately covers return format.

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%, and the description adds value by providing an example value ('goal-side-panel-locators') and showing the file path pattern ('registry/{scanName}.json'), which clarifies the parameter usage beyond the schema's description of 'Registry filename without .json'.

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 returns the full contents of a registry JSON file, specifying the file path pattern and that it contains a map of element keys to CSS, XPath, and template locators. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_locator (single locator) or list_registries (listing names).

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 description implies the tool is for retrieving the entire registry, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., get_locator for a single locator, get_registry_keys for keys only). The usage context is implied rather than explicitly guided.

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