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 well covered. The description adds that the result includes artifact and routing-surface status, but it does not disclose behavior for missing slugs or other edge cases. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 that front-loads the action and scope, then adds the two relevant status dimensions. Every clause contributes useful information with no redundancy or 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 one-parameter, read-only lookup with an output schema and clear annotations, the description covers the essential information an agent needs to invoke it correctly. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit guidance on choosing list_guides for enumeration, but that is not critical given the tool's simplicity.

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 only parameter (slug) already has a clear description with an example. The tool description only restates 'by slug' and adds no additional format, constraints, or behavioral nuance beyond the schema, so the 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 uses a specific verb and resource: it retrieves one guide registry row by slug, and it distinguishes this from sibling list tools by narrowing scope to a single item. It also names what is included (artifact + routing-surface status), so there is no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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 context is implied rather than explicit: 'one guide' and the presence of sibling list tools suggest this is for a single known slug, while list_guides would be used for enumeration. However, the description never states when to prefer this tool over list_guides or when not to use it.

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 description goes well beyond the readOnly/destructive annotations by explaining the subtle null semantics: 'ksao_type/canon_component_id are null by design where unresolved — treat null as not yet joined, never as no link.' This prevents a serious misinterpretation of returned data and is exactly the kind of behavioral context annotations do not provide.

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 core traversal purpose comes first, followed by the most important usage patterns, and then a critical data-interpretation caveat. Every sentence earns its place and no information is padded.

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 12 optional parameters, the description provides necessary conceptual framing, key usage recipes, and null-handling guidance. With an output schema present and 100% schema coverage, this is largely complete, though it does not describe default behavior when no filters are supplied.

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 already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description's references to min_guides=2, role, and capability_detail largely restate what the schema already says, adding little new parameter-level meaning beyond reinforcing examples.

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 operation — 'Traverse the capability spine' — and names the exact resources involved: books, guides (capability packages), KSAO-grade elements, and jobs. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like list_guides or get_guide by framing it as a cross-entity traversal rather than a single-resource lookup.

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 concrete 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 mention when to prefer a sibling tool like list_guides, but the guidance is clear enough for most selection decisions.

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 state readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description goes beyond them by disclosing the registry scope and the edge case that guides homed to a property with no rendering surface are included. No behavioral surprises are hidden.

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 communicates the resource, the full field set, and an important roll-up edge case with no filler. The em-dash leads with the core verb/resource before the 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?

With 13 optional filters fully described in the schema, read-only/destructive annotations in place, and an output schema available, the description covers the non-schema context: what the listing includes and the no-rendering-surface inclusion. Nothing needed to invoke it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so every one of the 13 parameters is already documented with meaningful descriptions. The tool description does not need to repeat parameter semantics and adds no parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 ('List') and resource ('bicycle.guide registry'), then enumerates the exact fields and includes the distribution roll-up, so the agent knows precisely what the tool returns. The scope ('every guide... including guides homed to a property with no rendering surface') distinguishes it from single-item or taxonomy/capability siblings.

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 the use case clear: a complete registry listing rather than a single guide or a capabilities/taxonomy listing. It does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, so it stops 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 declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those annotations by specifying that output includes live guide counts and is machine-readable rather than prose, helping the agent know what to expect.

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 packed sentence that front-loads the main purpose and then efficiently enumerates the taxonomy components. Every phrase earns its place, including the clarifying 'rather than prose' qualifier.

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 parameterless, read-only tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description is complete: it names all taxonomy areas returned and explains the output is structured data. Nothing needed for correct invocation 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 coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter burden for the description to carry. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the listing of vocabulary categories adds meaningful context about the tool's data scope.

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 ('Get the bicycle.guide vocabulary') and enumerates the exact components returned: domains, shelves with live guide counts, series, personas, guide_types, and classification conventions. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like list_guides and list_capabilities, which concern guides and capabilities rather than taxonomy.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus list_guides, get_guide, or list_capabilities. The phrase 'as machine-readable data rather than prose' hints at a use case, but there are no conditions, exclusions, or alternatives mentioned.

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