acr_show_usage

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only states 'Show usage information' without disclosing behavioral traits such as whether it is a read-only operation, permissions needed, or any side effects. The description is insufficient for a tool with no 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 concise with two lines plus a docstring format. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. There is no extraneous content, though it could be slightly more structured.

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 presence of an output schema, the description may not need to detail return values. However, the description lacks context about what 'usage information' includes (e.g., storage, count of repositories). It is minimally complete but leaves room for 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 lists both parameters (resource_group and registry_name) and their basic meanings, but adds no additional semantic information beyond the schema. With 0% schema description coverage, the description could provide more context like expected formats or sources, but it does not.

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 action ('Show usage information') and the target resource ('container registry'). It distinguishes well among sibling tools like acr_show_registry and acr_show_quotas by specifying 'usage information'.

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 implies usage for retrieval of usage info, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like acr_show_quotas or acr_list_repositories. No exclusions or context are given.

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