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 returned row includes artifact and routing-surface status, but this is largely redundant given an output schema exists. No extra behavioral information like error handling or lookup semantics is disclosed.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the core action ('Get one guide's registry row by slug') and appends only the relevant status detail. No filler or redundant phrasing.

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 retrieval tool with a rich output schema and non-destructive annotations, the description covers all necessary invocation details. An agent knows what to call, how to identify the target, and what kind of data to expect.

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 slug parameter is fully documented in the schema with a concrete example (start-a-company), and schema description coverage is 100%. The description merely repeats 'by slug' without adding semantic detail beyond the schema, 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 states a precise verb and resource: retrieve one guide's registry row by slug. It clearly distinguishes from sibling list tools like list_guides because it explicitly targets a single item via a slug identifier.

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 clear context that this tool is for fetching a single guide by slug, which implicitly differentiates it from the sibling list_tools. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the usage context is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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 read-only and non-destructive; the description adds a valuable behavioral caveat: ksao_type/canon_component_id are null by design and unresolved nulls must not be read as 'no link'. This prevents a likely misinterpretation of query results.

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 dense sentences, each earning its place: the core action, the highest-value parameter recipes, and a critical null-semantics warning. 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 tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description covers the main entry points and the tricky null behavior. The 'capability spine' and 'books' concepts could use a gloss, but the surrounding schema and title carry that weight.

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 covers 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic intent on top of the schema by explaining the cross-cutting, role-filtering, and hydrated-package use cases that justify min_guides, role, and capability_detail.

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 a specific action ('Traverse the capability spine') and names the resources it joins: books, guides, KSAO-grade elements, and jobs. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like list_guides and get_guide, which operate on a narrower resource.

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 gives explicit parameter-driven usage recipes: min_guides=2 for cross-cutting capabilities, role=<role> for job requirements, capability_detail=<slug> for a hydrated package. It does not explicitly say when to prefer get_guide or list_guides, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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 establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that by specifying the full contents of the returned registry and explicitly calling out the distribution roll-up and the edge case of guides with no rendering surface.

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 sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the core action and resource, then a compact enumeration of included data and the notable roll-up behavior. Every clause earns its place.

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 parameters, full schema coverage, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description adds the key scope edge case (distribution roll-up including unrouted guides). No critical invocation information is missing, though explicit sibling differentiation would improve completeness.

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 full parameter documentation. The description mentions several output/scope concepts like 'home', 'status', and 'standard', but does not add meaning to the filter parameters themselves. 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 opens with a specific verb and resource, 'List the bicycle.guide registry', and then enumerates the fields and roll-up it returns. This clearly distinguishes list_guides from siblings like get_guide (singular detail), 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 states what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to prefer it over sibling tools, nor any exclusions or alternative routing. An agent must infer that registry listing is the intended use; no explicit when/when-not guidance is provided.

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 disclose read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context by noting the result is 'machine-readable data rather than prose' and that shelf counts are 'live', which helps an agent understand the output's nature 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?

The description is a single dense sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then lists the taxonomy components and output format. Every clause earns its place; there is no filler or repetition beyond the needed scope clarification.

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 no-parameter, read-only listing tool with an output schema present, the description is sufficiently complete. It names the exact vocabulary components returned, signals the machine-readable format, and the empty input schema means there is no call-construction 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 the description carries no parameter-documentation burden. The empty schema already fully covers the input side, and the baseline of 4 is appropriate because there is nothing for the description to add.

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 identifies the action ('Get') and resource ('the bicycle.guide vocabulary') and enumerates specific contents such as domains, shelves, series, personas, and guide_types. It is far more informative than the title, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tools like list_guides or list_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 implies a clear use case: retrieve the guide program's structured vocabulary rather than prose. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over the sibling tools or when not to use it. The usage guidance is inferable but not stated.

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