describe_registry_tool

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

Annotations show readOnlyHint:true, and the description aligns fully, describing a read-only introspection operation. It adds modest context by mentioning that the signature includes permission info, implying permission-aware usage, but no further behavioral details are disclosed.

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 highly concise, using two short sentences to deliver the core purpose and a usage directive with no redundancy. Every word earns its place.

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 single-parameter read-only introspection tool with an output schema, the description covers what it does and when to use it. No additional context is needed; the output schema handles return value details.

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 for the lone 'name' parameter. It indirectly indicates that 'name' refers to a tool from the catalog, but it doesn't explicitly define the format or validation, leaving the parameter meaning inferable but not fully specified.

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 exact signature of a catalog tool, listing parameters, types, requiredness, permission, and examples. This specific verb+resource description distinguishes it from siblings like list_registry_tools and call_registry_tool.

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 instruction 'Consúltala antes de invocar' (consult it before invoking) explicitly tells the agent when to use the tool. It doesn't mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to know to call this before invoking another tool.

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