type_registry_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only defines the registry's contents. It does not state that the call is a read-only lookup, what the returned payload represents, or any side-effect or error behavior.

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?

A single concise, front-loaded phrase conveys the mapping and enumerates the value domains. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 registry lookup, the description covers the data model and the output schema is available, so the core call is understandable. However, it lacks explicit read-only behavior and any pointer to when to use it, leaving some context to inference.

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 an empty input schema, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The baseline of 4 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 identifies a specific resource (marker type registry) and the data it exposes: id-to-color, scope, and duration. It stops short of an explicit verb, but the name 'get' and the registry framing make the action clear, and the tool is easily distinguished from marker_upsert and markers_query.

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 is given on when to call this tool instead of sibling tools such as markers_query or clip_set_color. There is no stated use case, prerequisite, or condition under which the registry lookup is appropriate.

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