get_registry_statistics

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. It states 'Get comprehensive statistics' but doesn't clarify what 'comprehensive' means, whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, or what the output format might be. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly despite its brevity.

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 complexity of statistics gathering, zero annotation coverage, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what statistics are returned, how they're formatted, or any behavioral constraints, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively.

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 2 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the tool description adds no information about what 'registry' or 'include_context_details' mean. Without any parameter semantics in the description, the agent must rely solely on schema property names, which is insufficient for understanding parameter purposes or usage.

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 'Get comprehensive statistics about a registry' clearly states the action (get) and resource (registry statistics), making the purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what 'comprehensive statistics' entails and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_registry_info' or 'compare_registries', leaving ambiguity about scope.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'get_registry_info', 'compare_registries', and 'list_registries', there's no indication of how this tool differs in context or when it's the appropriate choice, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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