Get a governed registry's contents

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It conveys that the read is raw, current, and a 'live source of truth' (freshness/read-only context), but never states permissions, whether reads are cached, rate limits, or the shape/size of what comes back. Adequate but incomplete for an unannotated tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and tightly packed, with sibling disambiguation and the family shortcut each getting a clause. Slightly dense wording ('raw, current contents') but no padding or redundancy.

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?

With no output schema, the description should say more about what 'contents' look like (registry entry structure, whether icon/sub-layer entries differ from color entries). It covers identity and routing well but leaves the return payload largely unspecified for a two-parameter tool with no annotations.

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 50%: 'family' is documented in the schema, and 'name' is an enum whose values are largely self-explanatory. The description's note about passing 'family' for colors restates what the schema already says, and it mentions colors/sub-layers but omits the 'icons' value. Baseline 3 fits since the schema does most of the work.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('returns the raw, current contents of a governed registry') and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling get_schema by naming the difference (governed vocabulary vs. IR structural contract). An agent can pick this over get_schema without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use this for governed vocabulary, use get_schema for the structural document contract, and use 'family' when only one color family is wanted. There is no guidance for list_registries or an explicit when-not, but the primary sibling disambiguation is clear.

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