guide-registry

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the result includes artifact and routing-surface status, but it does not disclose error behavior, missing-slug handling, or access prerequisites; acceptable for a simple read-only lookup but not rich.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the core action and resource, followed by the additional included-status detail. No filler, and every clause earns its place.

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 single-parameter read-only lookup with an output schema, the description is complete: it names the lookup key and the included status fields. The terms 'artifact' and 'routing-surface status' are somewhat jargon-heavy, but the output schema can carry the structure, so only minor detail prevents a 5.

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 100% and the single slug parameter is documented with an example (start-a-company). The description only restates the by-slug lookup, adding no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 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 uses the verb 'get' with a specific resource ('one guide's registry row') and a clear lookup key ('by slug'), distinguishing it from the sibling list_guides. It also signals the returned content (artifact + routing-surface status), so an agent can infer the operation's scope.

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 establishes clear use context: call this when you have a slug and need exactly one guide registry row. It does not explicitly name list_guides as the batch alternative, but the contrast between 'one' and the plural sibling name is enough guidance for the common case.

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

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

The description discloses a non-obvious behavioral trait: ksao_type/canon_component_id are null by design, and null must be interpreted as 'not yet joined' rather than 'no link.' This is exactly the kind of semantic trap an agent would otherwise misread. It also frames the tool as a read/traverse operation consistent with the readOnlyHint annotation, and no contradiction exists.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the most important usage patterns and a critical null-semantics warning. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary abstraction. Every sentence earns its place.

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 — 12 optional parameters, four joined entity types, and an output schema — the description covers the essential conceptual model, the key parameter routes, and the critical interpretative rule about nulls. The detailed per-parameter schema handles the remaining specifics, so nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the schema already documents every parameter. The main description largely restates the schema's guidance for min_guides, role, and capability_detail rather than adding genuinely new parameter semantics. It adds mild framing value, but not enough to push above the baseline.

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 resource ('the capability spine') and a deliberate verb ('traverse') while naming the entities being joined: books, guides, KSAO-grade elements, and jobs. This clearly differentiates it from guide-focused siblings like list_guides and get_guide, even without naming them. The scope is unambiguous.

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 concrete conditional usage: min_guides=2 for cross-cutting capabilities, role=<role> for job requirements, and capability_detail=<slug> for a hydrated package. It does not explicitly state when to prefer list_guides or get_guide instead, so it falls short of explicit alternative routing, but the usage context is otherwise clear.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value beyond that by specifying that the result includes the distribution roll-up and explicitly includes guides homed to a property with no rendering surface, which is a non-obvious inclusion behavior. It does not cover pagination or defaults, but those are captured in the input schema.

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 sentence front-loads the verb and resource and uses an em dash to efficiently list the included fields and the roll-up. No filler words or redundancy.

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 read-only listing tool with 13 well-documented optional filters and an output schema present, the description provides sufficient context: it names the resource, the scope ('every guide'), and an important edge case (guides with no rendering surface). Nothing critical is missing for an agent to call it 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 description coverage is 100%, and every one of the 13 optional parameters has a descriptive comment. The tool description itself does not explain parameters; it only orients the caller to the shape of the output, so it stays at the baseline of 3.

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 opens with the specific verb 'List' and the resource 'bicycle.guide registry', then enumerates the contents: every guide's home, status, access, standard, syndication and grounding, plus the distribution roll-up. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_guide, which targets a single guide, and list_capabilities/list_taxonomy, which target other registries.

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 gives clear context: it is the tool for viewing the entire guide registry, including the distribution roll-up. An agent can infer when to use it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, such as 'use get_guide for a single guide', so it stops short of a 5.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds some useful context, such as 'live guide counts' and 'machine-readable data rather than prose,' but does not disclose deeper behavior beyond what annotations and the output schema already imply.

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 focused sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get the bicycle.guide vocabulary') and then packs in specific, useful detail. There is no fluff or repetition.

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 zero parameters, read-only annotations, and a provided output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. It clearly states what the vocabulary contains and notes that the data is machine-readable.

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 are no parameter meanings to explain. The description adds value by specifying the content of the returned vocabulary, which is more than necessary for a no-parameter tool.

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 ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource: the bicycle.guide vocabulary. It enumerates the exact categories returned (domains, shelves, series, personas, guide_types, classification conventions), which distinguishes it from siblings like get_guide and list_guides.

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 usage context is implied: an agent would use this tool when it needs the taxonomy or classification conventions of the guide program. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives such as list_guides or list_capabilities.

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