Get a registry entry

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

Annotations already mark this read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavior beyond that: the password is stripped by Woodpecker (Registry.Copy) and will never appear in the response, which is exactly the kind of unexpected absence an agent should know about.

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, no filler. The first sentence states the action and result fields; the second provides a high-value behavioral guarantee (password stripped). Front-loaded and 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?

For a parametrized read tool, the description plus fully documented schema and output schema give an agent what it needs to call correctly. The only minor gap is explicit routing versus list_registries, though the singular wording mostly covers that; not-found behavior is not stated but is not essential.

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%, with each of the four parameters documented including the scope-dependency of repo_id/org_id. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond noting the address and username are in the result, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 'Returns one registry entry', a specific verb and object, and clarifies the returned fields (address and username). The singular 'one' distinguishes it from the sibling list_registries, and the read-only wording distinguishes it from create/update/delete registry tools.

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 does not name alternatives or state when to choose get_registry over list_registries. The singular return and address-scope parameters imply the intended use case, but no explicit when/when-not guidance is provided.

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