get_register

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only describes the resource content rather than the tool's behavior. It does not explicitly state that this is a read-only retrieval, what format the result takes, whether it lists or summarizes data, or any limits, ordering, or side effects. The getter name implies read-only behavior, but that is not disclosed in the description itself.

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 compact sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core concept ('the ratified register') and then defines its scope. It is somewhat terse and noun-phrase-like, but it avoids unnecessary wording.

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 zero-parameter getter, the description provides a reasonable definition of the returned register's contents. However, it does not describe the output shape, does not address how this tool differs from get_register_pack, and offers no context about whether protocols or language constructs are grouped, ordered, or filtered. It is minimally adequate but leaves meaningful 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter documentation burden on the description. The description appropriately explains what the register contains, which serves as the relevant context for a no-argument call.

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 identifies a specific resource ('the ratified register') and enumerates its contents: language constructs with observed corpus adoption and project protocols with adoption status not_applicable. However, it does not clearly distinguish this from the sibling 'get_register_pack' or clarify what 'register' means relative to other getters, leaving some ambiguity for an agent selecting among related tools.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_register_pack, get_protocols, or get_adoption_snapshot. The description implies a use case of retrieving ratified register data but does not state exclusions or conditions that would route an agent away from siblings.

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