registry_get_registry_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does reveal the smart name-or-ID resolution behavior and what the response contains (usage statistics and endpoints). However, it does not state error behavior for a non-existent registry, authentication requirements, or confirm the operation is read-only — 'Get' implies it but never declares it.

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?

Front-loaded purpose line, with the smart-resolution behavior placed near the top where an agent will see it. The Args/Returns block is slightly redundant with the schema and output schema, but it carries the useful name-or-ID detail and return summary. No filler — reasonably tight overall.

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 simple 1-parameter getter with an output schema present, the description covers the essential identifier semantics and the high-level return contents. It omits prerequisites, what 'registry' refers to in context, and failure behavior on unknown identifiers. Adequate for the tool's simple contract but not fully complete.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains the single parameter accepts either a registry name or an ID, adding real meaning beyond the bare 'string' type in the schema. The Args line reinforces the name-or-ID contract. For a 1-param tool this fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get comprehensive registry information') and the domain (usage and configuration). The 'get info' framing naturally differentiates it from registry_create/registry_update/registry_delete and the credential-generating siblings, though it never names an alternative explicitly. 'Smart identifier resolution' adds specificity about how the resource is located.

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 tool versus nearby siblings like registry_get_docker_login_command, registry_generate_docker_credentials, or registry_generate_kubernetes_credentials — all of which surface registry access information an agent could confuse with this one. No prerequisites, ownership requirements, or conditions for choosing this over an alternative are stated.

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