fs_registry

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 is read-only. However, it does not detail error handling, performance implications, or what happens if the hive is corrupt. The presence of an output schema covers return values.

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 a single paragraph but well-structured: first sentence states purpose, then usage flow, then plugin examples. It is not overly long but could be more concise or formatted as steps.

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?

Given the tool's complexity, the description provides a good overview including prerequisites and plugin examples. The output schema exists, so return values are covered. However, it could elaborate on typical use cases or plugin outputs.

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. It explains image, hive_inode (implied), and plugin (with examples), but does not mention the offset parameter. For required params it adds meaning, but offset is left unexplained.

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 parses Windows registry hives from disk images using RegRipper in read-only mode. It specifies the action (parse registry hive), the method (RegRipper), and distinguishes from siblings by referencing fs_find and listing specific plugins.

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 provides explicit usage steps: find the inode with fs_find, then run a plugin. It lists example plugins. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use, the clear workflow and mention of alternative tool fs_find provide good context.

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