guide-registry

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 context by mentioning that the result includes artifact and routing-surface status, but it does not disclose operational behaviors like error handling or pagination. No contradiction with 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 that front-loads the verb and target, then appends exactly the two status dimensions that characterize the returned row. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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, get-by-slug operation with an output schema available, the description sufficiently explains what the row contains and how to identify it. The sibling tools provide listing functionality for broader queries, so nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke this 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% and the only parameter, slug, already has a clear description with an example. The description repeats that it is keyed by slug but adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so 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 clearly states a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('one guide's registry row'), and a lookup mechanism ('by slug'), which unambiguously distinguishes it from the list_* sibling tools. The title and description reinforce the same intent without ambiguity.

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 this tool is for retrieving a single guide by slug rather than enumerating guides, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. There is no direct comparison to list_guides or guidance for handling unknown slugs, leaving usage partly to inference.

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 cover safety, and the description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond them: it reveals that ksao_type/canon_component_id can be null by design and warns that null should be interpreted as 'not yet joined', not 'no link'. It also discloses that capability_detail hydrates one package with its elements and books.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, the second gives the highest-value usage modes, and the third covers the non-obvious null caveat. Every sentence earns its place with 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?

For a read-only, 12-parameter exploratory tool with a full output schema, the description covers the important traversal modes and the one behavioral caveat an agent could easily misread. It could additionally mention default limits or pagination, but the output schema and annotations reduce the burden, so the description is largely 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds extra semantic value by recommending a specific threshold (min_guides=2), explaining the semantics of role=, and clarifying that capability_detail changes the query mode to return one hydrated package. This goes beyond the individual field descriptions.

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 ('Traverse the capability spine joining books, guides, KSAO-grade elements and jobs'), so an agent knows what the tool operates on. It is not explicitly contrasted with the sibling tools get_guide, list_guides, or list_taxonomy, but its multi-entity traversal/hydration focus is reasonably distinct.

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 usage recipes for three key parameters: min_guides=2 for cross-cutting capabilities, role= for job requirements, and capability_detail= for one hydrated package. However, it gives no guidance on when to prefer this tool over get_guide, list_guides, or list_taxonomy, nor any explicit when-not-to-use conditions, so tool selection is left mostly implied.

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 establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by emphasizing that the registry includes every guide, even those homed to properties with no rendering surface, and that a distribution roll-up is included. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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, front-loaded sentence that starts with the action and resource, then efficiently enumerates the included data. Every phrase adds meaningful scope information, with no redundant restatement of the title or schema fields.

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 registry-listing tool with a full output schema and 100% schema-covered parameters, the description is sufficiently complete. It conveys the full scope and the notable inclusion of unrendered guides, while the schema handles filters, limits, and row shapes. No critical operational context 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 schema fully documents all 13 optional parameters. The description adds no parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides; it focuses on the output contents rather than filter meanings. 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 names a specific verb and resource ('List the bicycle.guide registry') and enumerates exactly what is included: every guide's home, status, access, standard, syndication, grounding, and distribution roll-up. This clearly separates it from the sibling tools by focusing on the complete registry rather than a single guide or taxonomy/capabilities subsets.

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 explains what the tool returns but gives no guidance on when to use it versus siblings like get_guide, list_capabilities, or list_taxonomy. There are no exclusions, conditions, or alternative-selection cues, so the agent must infer usage from the resource name alone.

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?

With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it returns machine-readable data, includes live guide counts, and covers classification conventions. It does not contradict annotations and supplements them with specifics about what data will be present.

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, information-dense sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the main purpose ('Get the bicycle.guide vocabulary') and then efficiently lists the included components, making it easy to scan.

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 that the tool has no parameters, strong read-only annotations, and an output schema, the description fully covers the essential information. It names all major taxonomy categories and clarifies the machine-readable nature, so an agent has enough context to invoke it correctly without additional documentation.

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 zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately focuses on what the response contains rather than parameter details, which are nonexistent. No parameter documentation is needed here.

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 resource ('bicycle.guide vocabulary'), then enumerates the exact contents: domains, shelves with live guide counts, series, personas, guide_types, and classification conventions. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_guide and list_guides, which target actual guides rather than vocabulary.

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 clearly indicates this tool is for retrieving machine-readable taxonomy data rather than prose, so the intended context is evident. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternatives, but the 'rather than prose' phrasing and enumerated contents give enough context for an agent to select it over guide-fetching siblings.

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