objectRegistrationInfo

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description supplements them by explaining that this tool reveals whether an object is foreign or read-only before a lock fails, giving a richer understanding of its informative, non-mutating behavior. 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?

Two sentences and a colon structure deliver the core purpose efficiently. The second sentence partly restates the 'whether it can be changed here' point, but it adds the actionable 'before a lock fails' context. No wordy filler or irrelevant repairs.

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 read-only query, the description covers what the returned data should conceptually be, but omits details about how the objectUrl parameter is expected and doesn't describe the actual response shape (there is no output schema). This is enough to begin using the tool, but the missing parameter documentation leaves real ambiguity.

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 description gives zero detail about the required objectUrl parameter. With no schema description coverage (0%), the description must compensate, but it never explains what URL to use, its format, or how it relates to the tool's purpose. The parameter name is mildly self-explanatory, but this is far too little for effective use.

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 explains what the tool provides: an object's workbench registration, covering transport layer, package, and whether it can be changed. It doesn't use an explicit action verb, but the resource and scope are specific and help differentiate it from sibling lock/transport actions like lock, unlockAll, and transportInfo.

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 gives a clear use-case: it should be called before a lock attempt to determine if the object is foreign or read-only. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion scenarios, but the guidance is unambiguous enough for an agent to know when this tool is relevant.

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