guide-registry

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

Annotations already declare the operation is read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds that the result includes artifact and routing-surface status. It does not discuss edge cases like missing slugs or response variants, but the safety profile is already covered by 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 focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core operation and includes the notable additional data fields without 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 simple single-parameter lookup tool with an output schema and read-only annotations, the description is complete. An agent knows what the tool does, how to identify the target guide, and what kind of response content to expect.

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 coverage is 100%, and the slug parameter already has a clear type and example. The description only restates that lookup is by slug and does not add substantial semantic detail beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: get one guide's registry row by slug. It also distinguishes itself from sibling list tools by noting it returns artifact and routing-surface status for a single 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 phrase 'one guide' and the requirement of a slug make the intended use clear: retrieve a specific guide rather than enumerate guides. It does not explicitly name list_guides as the alternative, but the usage context is unambiguous.

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?

Beyond the readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false annotations, the description adds critical behavioral context: null ksao_type/canon_component_id values mean 'not yet joined', never 'no link'. This prevents a common misinterpretation and gives real operational guidance.

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, each earning its place: the first states scope, the second gives the most important parameter patterns, and the third warns about null semantics. It is front-loaded and free of 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?

For a 12-parameter tool with an output schema and full schema descriptions, the description supplies the missing conceptual glue: the model of books, guides, KSAO elements, and jobs, plus the null-value gotcha. An agent has enough context to use 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats the schema's meaning for min_guides, role, and capability_detail without adding new parameter-level details. It adds useful emphasis but no substantive semantics beyond the schema.

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 resource — the capability spine joining books, guides, KSAO-grade elements, and jobs — and uses a concrete verb ('traverse'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like list_guides by emphasizing the cross-entity join rather than listing guides alone.

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 usage patterns: min_guides=2 for cross-cutting capabilities, role=<role> for job requirements, and capability_detail=<slug> for a hydrated package. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or say when not to use this tool, so it falls just 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 cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the baseline is 3, and the description clears it by adding real context: each row's field inventory, the distribution roll-up, and the completeness guarantee that even guides with no rendering surface are included. This surfaces an audit-oriented behavior that 'list' alone would not convey.

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 front-loaded sentence states verb, resource, and output scope before enumerating the row fields and roll-up; the parenthetical about unrouted guides earns its place by clarifying inclusion semantics. There is no filler, and the length is proportionate to the information conveyed.

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 a 100%-documented 13-parameter schema, an output schema, and rich read-only annotations, the description only needs to fill behavioral gaps, which it does well via the field inventory and roll-up note. The remaining gaps are minor — no statement of ordering, pagination beyond the limit cap, or whether filters affect the roll-up — so it falls just short of fully complete.

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 parameters already carries a rich, example-laden description (domain explained as the layer above the subject shelf, format documented with row shapes and a server default, category noting primary OR cross-shelf tag matching), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description lists output fields that map to some filters but adds no parameter-level detail on top of the schema, matching the baseline 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 names a specific verb and resource — 'List the bicycle.guide registry' — and enumerates exactly what each row contains (home, status, access, standard, syndication, grounding) plus the distribution roll-up, so an agent knows precisely what it returns. It does not explicitly contrast a sibling (e.g., that get_guide fetches a single guide), so differentiation from siblings is implicit rather than stated.

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 11 optional filters imply this is the browse/audit-all entry point, and the 'including guides homed to a property with no rendering surface' clause hints at a distribution-gap audit use case. However, there is no explicit 'use this when X, use get_guide/list_capabilities/list_taxonomy when Y' guidance, so when-to-use must be inferred.

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, covering the safety profile. The description adds behavioral context by specifying that the data includes live guide counts and is returned as machine-readable data rather than prose, which is genuinely useful beyond the structured 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 dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get the bicycle.guide vocabulary') and then lists the included categories with a clarifying format note. Every phrase adds information, and there is no filler 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, a rich output schema, and annotations covering read-only behavior, the description fully equips an agent to decide whether and how to invoke this tool. It enumerates the vocabulary categories and explicitly frames the output format, so nothing essential 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?

The tool has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema is effectively complete. The description appropriately explains what the returned vocabulary contains, which is the relevant semantic contribution for a parameterless call.

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 a specific resource ('bicycle.guide vocabulary'), then enumerates the exact contents: domains, shelves, series, personas, guide_types, and classification conventions. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that retrieve guides or capabilities rather than the vocabulary 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 implies when to use this tool: when an agent needs the guide program's vocabulary or classification conventions as structured data. It does not explicitly name alternatives or provide exclusion criteria, but the contrast with 'rather than prose' plus the listed contents makes the intended context clear.

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