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, which is useful context, but it does not describe not-found behavior, pagination, or other edge cases. Since annotations carry the main behavioral burden, the modest additional context earns a 3.

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, tightly written sentence that conveys the action, resource, lookup key, and included status fields without waste. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately understandable.

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 one-parameter read operation, the description is complete. The output schema covers return values, annotations cover safety, and the lone parameter is fully documented. Nothing critical for invoking the tool 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?

The schema already documents the only parameter, slug, with a clear description and example. The description does not add further parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 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 states a specific action ('Get'), a specific resource ('one guide's registry row'), and the retrieval key ('by slug'). It clearly contrasts with sibling list_guides, making the singular scope explicit. The added detail about artifact and routing-surface status further specifies what is returned.

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 makes clear this is for fetching a single guide by slug, which differentiates it from sibling list tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool versus list_guides. The singular 'one' implies the usage context, but no direct exclusion is given.

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?

It discloses non-obvious behavior around unresolved joins: 'ksao_type/canon_component_id are null by design where unresolved—treat null as not yet joined, never as no link', which prevents misinterpretation. It also explains that capability_detail hydrates elements and books for one package. These go beyond the readOnlyHint/destructiveHint annotations and add genuine behavioral context.

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 sentences with no filler: core mechanism, targeted parameter recipes, and the critical null caveat. It is front-loaded with the primary action and each sentence serves a distinct purpose.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value details are unnecessary. The description covers the main traversal modes, the most valuable filters, and the important null semantics. With all 12 optional parameters documented in the schema, nothing essential for invoking the tool 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?

The input schema already documents all 12 parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by explaining that min_guides=2 yields the cross-cutting spine, role filters by job requirement, and capability_detail returns a hydrated package, plus the null semantics for ksao_type/canon_component_id. This is useful enrichment over 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 action—'Traverse the capability spine'—and names the resources involved (books, guides, KSAO-grade elements, jobs), making the tool's purpose concrete. It is clearly distinct from siblings like list_guides or get_guide, which focus on single entities rather than cross-entity traversal and filtering.

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 recipes: 'Use min_guides=2 for the cross-cutting capabilities', 'role=<role> for what a job requires', and 'capability_detail=<slug> for one package with its elements and books hydrated'. It also clarifies null semantics. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of full exclusion guidance.

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 mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds value by disclosing that the result includes the distribution roll-up and that guides homed to a property with no rendering surface are included, clarifying the registry's full scope. This does not contradict the 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?

A single sentence front-loads the verb and resource, then packs the returned fields and the roll-up nuance into a neat list. No filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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 (13 optional filters, output schema present), the description's focus on scope, fields, and roll-up is sufficient. The rich schema and output schema cover filtering and return shape, leaving only usage-alternative guidance absent, which is a separate dimension.

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?

All 13 parameters are documented at 100% coverage in the schema, including enums and examples. The description adds no parameter-level guidance beyond pointing to the fields returned, so the schema carries the burden. 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 a specific verb ('List') and names a unique resource ('bicycle.guide registry'), enumerating the fields it returns. This makes it easy to distinguish from sibling tools that list capabilities or taxonomy rather than guides, and from get_guide which targets 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?

No explicit guidance is provided about when to choose list_guides over get_guide, list_capabilities, or list_taxonomy. The sibling-tool context implies the difference, but the description itself never states a selection condition or names an alternative.

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, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context by promising 'machine-readable data rather than prose' and noting that shelf counts are live, which informs expectations about the response without contradicting the 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence efficiently states the purpose, enumerates the taxonomy contents, and conveys the structured-data nature of the response. Every phrase earns its place; no filler or redundant restatement exists.

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 zero parameters, an output schema present, and annotations covering safety, the description provides the remaining context needed to invoke the tool correctly: exactly which vocabulary segments are returned and in what form. 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 full schema coverage, so there is no parameter documentation burden. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, this receives a 4; the description also adds semantic value by clarifying exactly what data categories the empty-parameter call returns.

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 names a concrete resource ('the bicycle.guide vocabulary'), then enumerates its contents: domains, shelves, series, personas, guide_types, and classification conventions. This clearly 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 description conveys clear context for when to use the tool: when the agent needs the structured vocabulary rather than individual guides or lists of guides. It does not explicitly state when-not-to-use or name alternatives, but the resource enumeration makes the appropriate use case obvious.

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