registry_get_config

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by explaining the resolution process ('up to three hops') and the return format, including details about multi-platform handling. No contradiction with 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?

The description is well-structured with sections for purpose, resolution, and parameter details. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. While slightly long, every sentence adds value and there is no redundancy.

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?

Given 5 parameters, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is complete. It explains all parameters, the return format, multi-platform behavior, and the resolution hops, leaving no significant gaps.

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%, but the description thoroughly explains all five parameters: `image`, `reference`, `platform`, `username`, `password`, including defaults, overrides, and the meaning of `platform`. It also describes the return dict structure.

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 specific verbs ('fetch and parse') and a clear resource ('image's config blob'). It explicitly states what information is retrieved (env vars, entrypoint, etc.) and distinguishes from sibling tool `registry_inspect_manifest` by noting that this goes beyond to the config blob.

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 clearly indicates when to use this tool: to answer 'what's inside this image?' with specific details. It implicitly contrasts with `registry_inspect_manifest` but does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives beyond the single sibling mention.

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