registry_output_formats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states 'List,' implying a read operation, but does not disclose safety (e.g., idempotent), side effects, or any behavioral constraints beyond listing. The output schema exists but is not referenced.

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 sentence with no redundancy, but it is too brief to be effective. Conciseness is achieved at the cost of completeness and clarity.

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 the simplicity (one parameter, output schema exists), the description is incomplete. It lacks context about what constitutes a valid tool, how output formats are returned, or typical use cases. The output schema is present but not explained or hinted at.

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 coverage is 0% (parameter 'tool' has no description). The tool description does not explain what 'tool' refers to or provide expected values. Despite having one required parameter, the description adds zero semantic meaning beyond the schema.

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 states 'List capture output formats for a Wireshark utility.' This clearly identifies the action (List) and the resource (capture output formats). However, it does not differentiate which specific Wireshark utility (e.g., tshark, dumpcap) or distinguish from sibling tools like registry_dissector_tables, but the verb and resource are specific enough.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among siblings, there are multiple registry listing tools without any differentiation criteria. No explicit when-not-to-use or prerequisites mentioned.

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