Get Edgegap container registry push credentials

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

Far exceeds the annotations (which only say non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive). It discloses the token-scope behavior (quick-start vs regular API token), the fallback response when credentials are unavailable, and handling constraints (registry-scoped token, use --password-stdin, never a CLI argument, never written to files).

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 purpose and the registry URL, then ordered by decision flow (when to use → auth caveat → token handling → prerequisite). It is long at roughly 110 words, but nearly every sentence encodes a security or routing constraint that cannot be dropped.

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?

Covers auth behavior, fallback path, token hygiene, and a prerequisite tool, which is substantial for a credential tool with no output schema. It does not state what happens if the optional 'tag' or 'image_name' are omitted, a minor gap given the 0 required parameters.

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 the schema already documents both 'tag' (never "latest") and 'image_name' (pattern, no project/tag). The description only adds that the returned commands are built 'for your image', which is implied. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries parameter meaning.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: fetching push login credentials for the organization's private Edgegap container registry, plus the exact docker login/build/push commands. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling edgegap_list_registry_tags, which only lists tags rather than supplying credentials.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it ('when the server image is not in a registry yet'), when it will not work ('with a regular API token this tool cannot fetch them... do not retry'), what to do instead (copy from the dashboard, ask the developer), and names a prerequisite sibling ('Call edgegap_validate_server_config before building').

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