get_registry_data

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it operates 'without pulling it' and warns about credential logging, providing useful behavioral context beyond 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?

Concise with a front-loaded purpose, security note, and clear arg/return sections. The args section partially repeats schema information but remains efficient overall.

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?

Covers purpose, security, and basic params, but lacks return value details (no output schema) and potential limitations (e.g., image must be locally cached). Adequate but missing edge cases.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides minimal explanation: 'name - Image reference' and 'auth_config - Optional registry authentication config.' Lacks details on format or structure for both parameters.

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 'Get registry data for an image without pulling it,' specifying the verb and resource. This distinguishes it from similar tools like registry_inspect_manifest by emphasizing the no-pull constraint.

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?

Provides explicit security guidance on auth_config logging and suggests using docker login instead. However, it does not directly compare with sibling tools or state when to use this over alternatives.

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