Dpanel Registry Detail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing: no indication of read-only nature, auth requirements, or what happens when the id is unknown. An output schema exists so return structure is covered, but the behavioral profile is effectively undocumented.

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 single sentence is not wasteful, but at four characters it is under-specified rather than concise. There is nothing to front-load because nothing is said.

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?

The tool is simple (one required param, output schema present), which lowers the bar, but with zero annotations and zero parameter documentation the description leaves an agent guessing about identifier format and read semantics. It is not complete enough for confident invocation.

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 0% and the description never mentions the single required 'id' parameter. It is not documented whether this is a numeric registry id, a name, or a slug, so the description adds no meaning beyond the bare 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 phrase "镜像仓库详情" names the resource (registry) and the operation (detail/fetch), which does separate it from siblings like dpanel_registry_list, _create and _delete. However, it is a bare noun phrase with no verb, so the agent must infer that it retrieves a single registry's details. Minimum-viable rather than distinguishing.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus dpanel_registry_list or any other sibling. The agent can only infer usage from the name. No prerequisites, no context about which id form is expected.

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