Get Edgegap container registry push credentials

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and the description explains exactly why it is not read-only ('Provisions the registry project on first use'). It adds high-value context beyond annotations: token scope (registry-scoped, not org API token) and a security constraint (pass via --password-stdin, never as an argument, never write to files). No contradiction with the structured hints.

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?

Front-loaded with the return payload, then when-to-use, then provisioning side effect, then token safety, then prerequisite call. Every sentence carries distinct operational information and none is redundant.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description enumerates the return payload (URL, project, username, token, commands) and covers the mutation side effect, token scope, and sequencing. An agent has everything needed to call it safely and correctly.

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 both parameters (tag, image_name) are already documented, including the 'Never latest' rule. The description only alludes to them via 'the exact docker login, build and push commands for your image,' adding essentially no meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource (return registry URL/project/username/token plus exact docker commands) and pins it to a concrete artifact (registry.edgegap.com). Clearly distinguishable from sibling edgegap_list_registry_tags, which lists tags rather than handing back credentials and commands.

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?

Explicit trigger: 'Use this when the server image is not in a registry yet — no Docker Hub account needed.' It also sequences a sibling dependency ('Call edgegap_validate_server_config before building'), so the agent knows both when to invoke this and what to do first.

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