open_registration_tool

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. It clarifies that the tool only opens a UI-based registration tool and does not perform the push update itself; it also instructs the user to copy the package/assembly GUID after registration for subsequent updates. This is more transparent than a simple 'Open PRT' but could still be slightly clearer about whether opening the tool has any side effects.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. Subsequent sentences explain the workflow and why this tool is necessary, with no redundant or filler content. Every sentence earns its place.

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 (zero parameters, no complex schema), the description fully covers what the tool does, when it is needed, how it relates to push_plugin_update, and the expected post-registration action. It is complete for an AI agent to decide when and how to invoke it.

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 zero parameters, and the schema is empty (100% coverage). The description does not need to elaborate on parameters, and it instead provides contextual workflow information. This is appropriate for a no-parameter tool, meriting the baseline of 4.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Open the Plugin Registration Tool (PRT) for the FIRST registration of a plug-in package.' It clearly scopes the tool to first-time registration and explicitly contrasts it with 'pac plugin push', which updates existing packages, thus distinguishing it from sibling tools like push_plugin_update.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool (first registration) and when not to use the alternative CLI command. It names an alternative (Visual Studio extension) and explains that no CLI command exists for creating a package from scratch. This provides clear usage guidance and exclusions.

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