guide-registry

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety expectations. The description adds value by specifying that the returned row includes artifact and routing-surface status, giving the agent a clearer picture of the result beyond the schema alone. Status value details are not described, but an output schema exists to fill that gap.

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 compact sentence front-loads the core action and resource, then appends the key return details. There is no filler, repeated title, or redundant schema information.

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-only retrieval tool with a full output schema and clear annotations, the description is sufficient. It tells the agent what to fetch, how to identify the target, and what the row contains; nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 fully documents the single 'slug' parameter with an example, so description coverage is 100%. The description merely mentions 'by slug' and adds no new parameter-level semantics 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 clearly states the action ('get'), the specific resource ('one guide's registry row'), the lookup key ('by slug'), and the included content ('artifact + routing-surface status'). This distinguishes it from the sibling list_guides tool, which would retrieve multiple 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 'by slug' phrasing gives a clear retrieval context: use this tool when you have a specific guide slug and need a single registry entry. It does not explicitly say when to prefer list_guides or list_capabilities instead, but the singular scope is reasonably evident.

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, and the description adds important behavioral nuance: 'ksao_type/canon_component_id are null by design where unresolved — treat null as not yet joined, never as no link.' This prevents a common misinterpretation and goes beyond what annotations 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: purpose first, then usage patterns, then a critical caveat. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler or repetition of schema content.

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, fully optional query tool with an output schema and read-only annotations, the description covers the main invocation modes and flags the most likely misinterpretation. The output schema handles return-value details, 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine value by explaining how to use min_guides, role, and capability_detail for specific intents, plus the null semantics around ksao_type/canon_component_id. It doesn't re-explain every parameter, but it sharpens the most important ones beyond the schema text.

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: 'Traverse the capability spine joining books, guides (capability packages), KSAO-grade elements and jobs.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like list_guides or get_guide by framing it as a cross-entity traversal rather than a simple list or detail fetch.

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 invocation patterns for key modes: '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 lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives, but the provided context is strong and actionable.

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, lowering the bar. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: the listing is all-inclusive ("every guide") and the roll-up explicitly includes guides homed to a property with no rendering surface — an edge case an agent might otherwise assume is excluded. No contradiction with 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 well-crafted sentence of roughly 30 words. It front-loads the verb and resource, then packs only informative detail: the field enumeration and the no-rendering-surface edge case in the parenthetical. Every word earns its place with no filler or 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 13-filter list tool, the description establishes the scope and key output contents, and the output schema plus 100%-covered parameter descriptions carry the rest. It does not explicitly state the default unfiltered behavior or distinguish the compact/full row shapes, but those details are documented in the schema, leaving only a minor gap.

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% across all 13 parameters, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no per-parameter meaning — it only establishes global scope and output contents — but it doesn't need to, because each parameter already carries a detailed explanation in 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 — "List the bicycle.guide registry" — and enumerates exactly what is returned: home, status, access, standard, syndication, grounding, plus a distribution roll-up. The plural registry-wide scope distinguishes it from the singular get_guide, and the "guide registry" resource clearly separates it from list_capabilities and list_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 implies its use case — whenever a complete registry view with all fields and the roll-up is needed — but it never names siblings or states when to prefer get_guide, list_capabilities, or list_taxonomy. No exclusions or alternative conditions are given, so routing guidance must be inferred from the differing resource types.

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, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context: it mentions 'live guide counts' and emphasizes machine-readable output rather than prose, giving the agent a clearer picture of what the result will contain and how it is produced.

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, dense sentence with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and every additional phrase contributes useful specifics about the vocabulary contents and the machine-readable nature of the response.

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, an output schema, and read-only annotations, the description fully covers what an agent needs to know. It explains the resource, the contents, and the output form without requiring the agent to infer anything critical.

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 schema semantics are trivially complete. The description adds value by enumerating the response categories, which helps the agent understand what data the output schema represents. No parameter documentation is needed.

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 clear verb-resource pair: 'Get the bicycle.guide vocabulary'. It enumerates the specific categories returned (domains, shelves, series, personas, guide_types, classification conventions), which clearly distinguishes this from siblings like list_guides or get_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 description makes clear this is the tool for retrieving vocabulary/taxonomy as machine-readable data, as opposed to prose documentation. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the context is strong enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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