get_tool_registry_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explains that the tool returns a dictionary with 'rate_limits' and 'tool_categories', which is good. However, it does not disclose whether the data is cached, how recent it is, or any side effects (though likely none). The description is adequate but not thorough.

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 three short sentences/paragraphs, totaling about 40 words. It front-loads the purpose and adds usage and return info without fluff. It could be slightly more streamlined (e.g., merging the first two lines), but it is still concise.

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 no parameters and the presence of an output schema (not shown but assumed), the description adequately covers what the tool returns and when to use it. It doesn't address error conditions or authentication, but for a simple status tool, this is largely sufficient.

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?

There are no parameters in the input schema (0 params), so schema coverage is effectively 100%. The description naturally adds no parameter specifics. According to guidelines, 0 parameters yields a baseline of 4, which is appropriate.

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 'Get tool registry status including rate limits and available tool categories.' This directly tells the agent the verb (Get) and resource (tool registry status), and it distinguishes itself from sibling status tools like get_system_health or get_resource_usage by being specific to the tool registry.

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 states 'Useful for monitoring tool availability and diagnosing rate-limit issues.' This gives clear context for when to use it. However, it does not mention when not to use it or provide explicit alternatives among the many sibling tools, so it misses some exclusions.

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