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 the notion of a 'registry row' with artifact and routing-surface status, but this is more return-content detail than behavioral disclosure; no additional mutation, auth, or error behavior is described.

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, tight sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then appends the key return scope. No words are wasted, and the title reinforces the same concise message.

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 single-parameter read-only lookup with an output schema and safety annotations, the description is complete. The required slug is documented, the return scope is stated, and annotations cover the operation's non-destructive nature, so an agent has everything needed 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the slug parameter already includes a concrete example ('start-a-company'). The description says 'by slug' but adds no semantic detail beyond what the input schema already provides, so the baseline score 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 uses a specific verb+resource construction: 'Get one guide's registry row by slug,' which clearly identifies both the operation and the target. It also specifies what is included ('artifact + routing-surface status'), distinguishing it from the sibling list_guides tool without needing to open the schema.

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 singular lookup by slug, which contrasts with list_guides for enumerating all guides. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over list_guides or list_capabilities, so it lacks a direct when-not/alternative statement.

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 read-only and non-destructive; the description adds meaningful behavioral context: ksao_type/canon_component_id are null by design, null means 'not yet joined' rather than 'no link', and capability_detail hydrates elements and books. 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?

Three sentences with no filler: purpose is front-loaded, usage patterns are compact, and the null caveat earns its place because it prevents a common misinterpretation.

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 traversal tool, the description gives enough orientation and key caveats while leaving detailed parameter behavior to the fully described schema and output schema. It could be more explicit about when to prefer list_guides/list_taxonomy, but the core usage is covered.

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 carries the parameter semantics. The description's min_guides/role/capability_detail mentions largely restate schema descriptions rather than introducing new parameter meaning.

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?

Uses a specific verb 'Traverse' plus a clear resource: the capability spine joining books, guides, KSAO elements and jobs. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_guides and get_guide, which target the guide entity rather than the cross-entity graph.

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?

Offers explicit recipes: min_guides=2 for cross-cutting capabilities, role=<role> for job requirements, capability_detail=<slug> for hydrated package lookup. It does not name exclusionary alternatives, but the use cases are concrete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

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 cover the read-only, non-destructive safety profile. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral edge: the registry includes guides homed to a property with no rendering surface, which could otherwise be an unexpected inclusion. It mostly lists output contents rather than deeper runtime behavior, so a bar above the baseline is warranted without reaching the top.

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 dense sentence with the main action front-loaded and every clause contributing registry scope, row contents, the roll-up, and the rendering-gap inclusion. There is 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?

With fully documented parameters, an output schema, and read-only/destructive annotations, the residual burden on the description is small. It covers purpose and the notable edge inclusion; the only real gap is explicit alternative routing, which sibling names largely make recoverable.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 13 filter parameters. The description focuses on output contents rather than parameter behavior, so it adds no extra parameter semantics; 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 opens with 'List the bicycle.guide registry' — a specific verb, resource, and scope. It enumerates what each row includes and the distribution roll-up, which clearly differentiates it from get_guide and the capability/taxonomy listers.

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 purpose implies this is the right tool for a full registry overview, but the description never names sibling tools or states when not to use it. An agent must infer selection from the name and resource rather than being given explicit routing 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 declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: the data includes live guide counts and is returned as machine-readable data rather than prose. No contradictions 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 sentence that leads with the action and resource, then provides a compact list of contents. Every element adds information, and there is no fluff. The description is long enough to be specific but not bloated.

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 and an output schema present, the description covers everything an agent needs to decide to call it. It specifies the scope of the returned vocabulary and the live-count detail. No gaps are apparent for a read-only list tool.

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 accepts zero parameters, so the description has no parameter documentation burden. The schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description's content listing gives context about what the returned data will contain, which is the relevant semantic information for a no-parameter tool.

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 ('Get') and a specific resource ('the bicycle.guide vocabulary'), then enumerates the included components (domains, shelves, series, personas, guide_types, classification conventions). This makes it immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like get_guide, list_capabilities, and list_guides, which operate on different resources.

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 implies when to use this tool: when you need the taxonomy/vocabulary as machine-readable data. The phrase 'rather than prose' hints at a use-case distinction, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool. Still, the context is clear enough for a zero-parameter retrieval tool.

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