cg_registry

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies registry interactions (search, install, rate) and gives a precautionary instruction to search before writing reusable logic, though it does not detail side effects like what installing modifies or whether rating is idempotent. That said, it provides a good deal of operational context.

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 compact paragraph of three sentences that front-loads the tool's purpose and action workflow, then adds the critical instruction about using the exact 'id' value. Every sentence earns its place and no redundant wording exists.

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 this is a multi-action orchestrator with 17 parameters and no output schema, the description could be even more complete. It covers the major workflow rules and parameter linkage but does not mention output shape or error conditions, which would be needed for full self-sufficiency. However, it is strong for an overview-level tool.

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 schema covers all parameter descriptions at 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by linking the 'id' field semantics to widget_id, and clarifying the overall role of each action. However, most parameter meaning is already well captured in the schema.

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 identifies the tool as a registry-facing daily workflow for Cartograph widgets and blueprints, and enumerates the primary actions (search, inspect, install, rate). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on the registry workflow rather than creation, validation, or status operations.

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 instructions on when to use the tool: use search before writing reusable logic, inspect before installing or editing, install to add a widget, and rate to leave feedback. It also tells the agent to use the exact 'id' value returned by search when installing or inspecting, which is actionable guidance.

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