get_shadcn_registry

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully describes behavioral traits: prerequisites ('Component specs must exist'), optional tokens behavior ('mapped into a registry:theme item'), and side-effect disclosure ('without writing files to disk'). The return structure is also detailed, exceeding the burden for a tool without annotations.

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 four sentences, each earning its place. It front-loads the core purpose, then provides prerequisites, return details, and usage guidance. No redundant or superfluous language.

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?

Despite no output schema and no annotations, the description covers prerequisites, return data structure, use cases, and distinction from a sibling tool. It is fully sufficient for an agent to understand when and how to use this tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema for the two parameters ('name' and 'homepage'). It mentions token mapping in the context of the tool's operation but not linked to parameters.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Build and return a shadcn-native registry index from the current Memoire workspace.' It specifies the verb (build and return) and resource (registry index), and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool get_registry_item by noting 'For an individual item, use get_registry_item.'

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 provides usage context: 'Use this tool to provide AI editors and v0-compatible workflows with a registry context without writing files to disk.' It also directs to an alternative for single items: 'For an individual item, use get_registry_item.' This satisfies both when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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