get_registration_token

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to repeat that. However, it adds no extra behavioral traits (e.g., permission requirements, token format, or side effects). The description is consistent but doesn't extend beyond the 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 a single sentence of 12 words with zero wasted verbiage. It is front-loaded with the action 'retrieve' and immediately states the resource and scope.

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 read-only token retrieval, the description and schema together provide sufficient information. The lack of output schema could be a minor gap, but the tool's simplicity and annotations compensate. No missing context is critical.

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 input schema already fully documents both parameters with clear descriptions and enum values, covering 100% of parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so 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 uses a specific verb 'retrieve' and identifies the unique resource 'registration token', and clarifies the scope by listing the three entity types. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_device or get_site.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it describe any prerequisites or context. The agent is left to infer usage solely from the tool name and entity types.

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