guide-registry

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

Annotations already convey readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds a useful detail about including artifact and routing-surface status, but it does not describe error behavior, return structure, or any side effects. With annotation coverage, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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 with no filler. Every word adds value: action, resource, lookup key, and the included status details.

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 read-only tool with one well-documented parameter and an output schema, the description is complete. An agent has everything needed to decide when to call it and how to invoke 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?

The schema fully documents the only parameter 'slug' with an example, giving 100% schema description coverage, so baseline is 3. The description reinforces that the lookup uses slug but does not add further 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 clearly states a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('one guide's registry row'), and the key parameter ('by slug'). It adds helpful scope ('with its artifact + routing-surface status') and distinguishes itself from sibling list tools, which operate over collections rather than 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 singular 'one guide' and 'by slug' imply this tool is for fetching a specific guide rather than listing all guides, but no explicit guidance or alternative is mentioned. The description does not state when to prefer get_guide over list_guides or the other siblings, leaving usage 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?

Beyond the readOnlyHint=true annotation, the description discloses a critical interpretation detail: null values for ksao_type/canon_component_id mean 'not yet joined', not 'no link'. This prevents a likely misinterpretation and is exactly the kind of behavioral context annotations cannot express.

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 core traversal statement, the key parameter recipes, and the essential null-handling caveat. The most actionable guidance is front-loaded and there is 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?

Given the tool's complexity (12 parameters, an output schema, and several filtering modes), the description provides a compact orientation plus the one non-obvious behavioral trap. It does not discuss every parameter, but the input schema already covers those; the description supplies the missing strategic context.

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, but the description adds meaningful usage semantics for min_guides, role, and capability_detail that go beyond the raw schema descriptions. It frames min_guides=2 as producing the 'cross-cutting spine' and capability_detail as hydrating elements and books, which helps an agent choose parameters more intelligently.

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 operation ('Traverse the capability spine') and a clear resource set (books, guides, KSAO elements, jobs), which distinguishes it from the sibling list_guides and get_guide tools. It also gives concrete parameter-driven modes (min_guides, role, capability_detail) that clarify the tool'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?

It provides explicit usage guidance for three key parameters: min_guides=2 for cross-cutting capabilities, role=<role> for job requirements, and capability_detail=<slug> for hydrated packages. It does not explicitly state when to prefer a sibling tool, but the intended contexts are clear from the examples.

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, fully covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful context by disclosing that the result includes the distribution roll-up and explicitly includes guides with no rendering surface — an inclusion edge case an agent might otherwise not expect. It does not cover pagination, ordering, or performance, though the schema's limit parameter partially addresses volume.

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 front-loaded sentence that places the verb and resource first, then adds scope details and the distribution-gap edge case. The parenthetical is dense but informative, and no clause is wasted. Slightly heavy in the middle, but efficient overall.

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 tool with 13 optional parameters, 100% schema coverage, an output schema, and read-only/non-destructive annotations, the description plus structured metadata supplies virtually everything needed for correct invocation. The only real gap is explicit routing guidance against the sibling tools, which was already penalized under usage_guidelines.

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%: all 13 parameters have rich schema descriptions, including the domain derivation note ('via content/registry/shelves.json') and the 'compact' vs 'full' row-shape distinction. The description itself only loosely maps to the parameters by naming fields (home, status, access, standard) and the roll-up, adding no new syntax, defaults, or format details beyond the schema. Baseline 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 states a specific verb ('List') and a named resource ('the bicycle.guide registry'), then specifies the exact scope: every guide's home, status, access, standard, syndication and grounding, plus the distribution roll-up, and even the edge case of guides homed to a property with no rendering surface. This precision makes it clearly distinct from siblings get_guide (singular fetch), list_capabilities, and list_taxonomy (different 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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, and no alternative tool is named. The verb 'List' plus the registry resource and the extensive filter parameters imply this is the enumeration/browsing tool versus get_guide for a single record, but that routing is left to inference rather than stated.

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 no additional safety disclosure is needed. The description adds useful context such as 'live guide counts' and 'machine-readable data,' but it does not discuss response size, pagination, or other runtime behavior. The output schema presumably covers return structure.

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 core action ('Get the bicycle.guide vocabulary') and then lists the taxonomy elements. The list is somewhat dense but every item provides useful information and nothing is filler or redundant.

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 available, and read-only annotations already in place, the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It clearly communicates the scope and the data categories returned, leaving little ambiguity.

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, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The description's enumeration of returned categories is useful but not parameter-related; with no parameters, the baseline of 4 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 specific verb 'Get' with the resource 'bicycle.guide vocabulary' and enumerates exactly what is included: domains, shelves with live guide counts, series, personas, guide_types, and classification conventions. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on guides or capabilities.

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 a clear use case: retrieve the taxonomy/vocabulary as machine-readable data rather than prose. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the resource is distinct enough from sibling tools that an agent can infer the right context.

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