Get Registry Stats

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context: specific metric definitions, a 5,000-agent sample cap, non-global distribution warning, and snapshot limitations. This goes beyond the annotations to inform the agent of important constraints.

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 sentence that is concise yet packed with relevant information. It front-loads the core purpose and follows with specific constraints. It earns its place without being verbose.

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 has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers key caveats like sample cap and distribution warning, making it sufficiently complete for a simple stats retrieval 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 tool has no parameters, so the description doesn't need to explain parameter usage. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on the tool's output and constraints.

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 provides 'registry counts plus sampled metrics' and lists specific features like sample cap and warnings. It effectively communicates the purpose of retrieving registry stats, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_registry_health.

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 mentions constraints (sample cap, non-global distribution warning) but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_registry_health or leaderboard. Given the number of sibling tools, more context on use cases is needed.

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