Получение информации о реестре контейнеров

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

The description claims the tool 'returns detailed information' (a read-only operation), but annotations set readOnlyHint=false, which suggests the tool is not read-only. This is a direct contradiction between the description and the annotation metadata, so the description fails to provide the needed behavioral transparency and instead conflicts with structured data.

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, well-structured sentence that lists the returned fields (name, description, tariff, disk usage, creation and update dates) without any redundant or vague phrasing. It is effectively concise and front-loaded.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is fairly complete: it specifies the resource, the lookup key, and the expected response fields. The only notable gap is the failure to address the readOnlyHint contradiction, but this is a transparency issue rather than a completeness issue for the description itself.

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 input schema fully documents the sole parameter with a clear description and required marking, so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description does not add parameter-related meaning beyond what the schema already provides, which matches the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('возвращает' - returns) and identifies the resource ('реестр контейнеров' - container registry) with a clear scope ('по ID' - by ID). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like list_container_registries which would list all registries.

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 implies usage for retrieving a single registry by ID, and the schema parameter description adds 'получить через list_container_registries' (get via list_container_registries), which guides the agent on obtaining the ID. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like list_container_registries.

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