cg_registry

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions using exact ids but does not explain side effects, destructive actions, permissions, or return values. Given the tool performs writes (install, rate), this is a significant gap.

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 only three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by action guidelines and a critical usage hint. Every sentence adds value without 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 14 parameters and no output schema, the description lacks necessary context about return values, error handling, and prerequisites for actions. For instance, it does not describe what install or inspect returns. This is insufficient for effective agent use.

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 100%, so parameter descriptions in schema are already complete. The description adds no new per-parameter semantics beyond repeating the caution about widget_id. It does group parameters by action implicitly, but that alone does not elevate beyond baseline.

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 as a registry daily workflow for widgets and blueprints, listing specific actions (search, inspect, install, rate). It defines what the tool does but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools.

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 explicit guidance on when to perform each action (e.g., 'search before writing reusable logic', 'inspect before installing or editing'). It also advises using the exact id from search for install/inspect. This offers clear context within the tool, though no guidance on when to avoid the tool entirely.

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