cg_registry

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear full responsibility. It mentions that install/inspect require an exact ID but does not disclose that install modifies the project or any side effects. The description is adequate but lacks important behavioral details like authorization needs or destructiveness.

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 concise three-sentence paragraph that front-loads the purpose and immediately provides actionable workflow instructions. No redundant or filler content.

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 tool's 17 parameters and 1 required field, the description covers the core workflow and key constraints (exact ID). It lacks details on return values or error scenarios, but it is reasonably complete for the intended registry interactions.

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 coverage is 100%, with each parameter described. The description adds value by contextualizing the workflow (e.g., 'use search before writing') and reinforcing that widget_id should be exact from search. However, it does not significantly augment the schema beyond these points.

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 is for 'Registry-facing daily workflow for Cartograph widgets and blueprints' and lists four distinct actions (search, inspect, install, rate), establishing its purpose. Sibling tools like cg_blueprint or cg_create do not overlap, so it is well-differentiated.

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 explicitly recommends using search before writing logic, inspect before install/edit, and install to add widgets. It also instructs to use the exact 'id' field from search for install/inspect. While no explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives are given, the workflow guidance is helpful.

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