get_registry_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Get detailed information' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't specify what constitutes 'detailed information,' whether authentication is required, potential rate limits, or error conditions. The backward compatibility note adds some context but doesn't fully describe the tool's behavior.

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 perfectly concise and well-structured. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides crucial usage guidance. Both sentences earn their place, with no wasted words or redundant information.

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 single-parameter read tool, the description covers the basic purpose and provides excellent usage guidance. However, with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, it leaves significant gaps in understanding parameter requirements and return values. The backward compatibility context is helpful but doesn't fully compensate for these structural deficiencies.

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 input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no information about the 'registry' parameter. It doesn't explain what format the registry identifier should take, whether it's required (schema shows default: null), or what happens when null is provided. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get detailed information about a specific registry.' This is a specific verb ('Get') + resource ('registry') combination that indicates a read operation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_registry_statistics' or 'list_registries' beyond the backward compatibility note.

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 provides excellent usage guidance with explicit alternatives and context. It states: 'Consider using the 'registry://info/{name}' resource instead for better performance.' This gives clear direction on when to prefer an alternative approach, and the backward compatibility note helps frame when this tool might still be appropriate.

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