Get registry manifest

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool returns a manifest and lists its contents, which suggests a read-only operation, but it does not disclose behavior when the registry does not exist or whether any side effects occur. This is acceptable but not fully transparent.

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?

Two sentences provide the resource, the returned fields, and the intended usage without wasted words. The key purpose is 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?

For a zero-parameter read-only metadata retrieval tool, the description covers what it returns and how it should be used. No output schema exists, but the listed manifest fields give sufficient expectation of the result.

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?

There are zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially complete. The description adds contextual meaning by explaining what the manifest contains, but parameter-specific semantics are not needed here.

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 clearly states a specific action ('Return') and a specific resource ('the registry's manifest'), and enumerates its contents: schema version, registry version, project info, and configured design tool(s). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like registry_get_component or registry_validate.

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?

It explicitly says 'Use this first to confirm a registry exists and understand what project it describes,' giving clear contextual when-to-use guidance. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a perfect score.

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