guide-registry

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

Annotations already declare read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context by stating the result includes artifact and routing-surface status, but it does not disclose behavior for missing slugs or other edge cases. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is adequate.

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-loaded with the action and resource, and every phrase contributes meaning. There is no filler or redundant information.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with an output schema and rich annotations, the description is nearly complete. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit guidance on how this relates to list_guides for browsing all guides.

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 slug parameter is already documented with an example. The description only repeats 'by slug' and adds no new parameter-level meaning.

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?

Clearly identifies the verb (Get), the resource (one guide's registry row), the lookup method (by slug), and the included fields (artifact + routing-surface status). This differentiates it from list_guides, which lists many 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 is implied: call this when you have a specific slug and need a single guide row. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name the sibling alternative for broader listing, so guidance is only implicit.

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 read-only annotations already establish safety, so the description earns credit for adding the important null-semantics caveat: unresolved ksao_type/canon_component_id values mean 'not yet joined', not 'no link'. This is genuinely useful behavioral context beyond the schema and 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?

Three sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second gives the primary usage recipes, and the third provides the critical data-interpretation caveat. Everything earns its place and is front-loaded.

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 rich 100%-covered schema, the output schema, and read-only annotations, the description is sufficiently complete. It highlights the three most important invocation patterns and the one subtle null behavior an agent needs to avoid misinterpreting results. No essential guidance 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 applies: the schema already documents each parameter thoroughly. The description's references to min_guides, role, and capability_detail mostly restate schema content rather than adding new parameter meaning, though it does frame them as intended use patterns.

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 names a specific verb ('Traverse'), a specific resource ('the capability spine'), and the entities involved (books, guides, KSAO elements, jobs). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_guides and get_guide, which cover narrower slices of the same domain.

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 explicit, actionable patterns: min_guides=2 for cross-cutting capabilities, role=<role> for job requirements, and capability_detail=<slug> for hydrated package details. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives, but the usage context is clear enough for an agent to select modes correctly.

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 useful behavioral detail beyond those annotations: it returns every guide's full status metadata and the distribution roll-up, and explicitly includes guides homed to a property with no rendering surface. This reveals an otherwise surprising inclusion.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the purpose and packs the distinguishing detail about the roll-up and unrenderable guides into one coherent statement. No wasted words or repetition of schema content.

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?

The tool has a rich input schema, full annotations, and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the non-obvious inclusion behavior of the roll-up, though it leaves the distinction from list_capabilities and list_taxonomy to the agent.

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 schema fully documents all 13 filters. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, but with full schema coverage the 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 opens with a specific verb and resource, 'List the bicycle.guide registry', and enumerates the exact row contents (home, status, access, standard, syndication, grounding) plus the distribution roll-up. This clearly distinguishes it from a single-guide fetch like get_guide.

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 'registry' framing and the mention of the distribution roll-up give clear context that this is a broad listing tool, but it never explicitly says when to prefer it over list_capabilities or list_taxonomy, nor does it name exclusions. Usage must be inferred from sibling names and the word 'registry'.

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 useful behavioral nuance by noting 'live guide counts' and 'machine-readable data rather than prose,' setting expectations about freshness and format.

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 with the main point front-loaded: 'Get the bicycle.guide vocabulary.' Every clause adds specific value, from listing taxonomy components to noting live counts and machine-readable format, with no filler.

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?

With no required parameters, an output schema present, and read-only annotations, the description is complete for safe invocation. It identifies all relevant taxonomy categories and behavioral expectations, so an agent has enough information to call the 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?

The tool has zero parameters and an empty input schema, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The description's enumeration of returned categories adds meaningful context about what the parameterless call returns, which satisfies the baseline for this case.

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 and resource ('Get the bicycle.guide vocabulary') and explicitly enumerates the contents: domains, shelves with live guide counts, series, personas, guide_types, and classification conventions. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like list_guides and get_guide, which concern guides rather than the taxonomy itself.

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 for when to use the tool: whenever an agent needs the guide program's vocabulary or taxonomy, including shelves and guide types. It does not name sibling tools or provide explicit exclusions, but the scope is unambiguous enough that selection should be straightforward.

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