guide-registry

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds behavioral context about the returned row including 'artifact + routing-surface status'. For a simple getter with a safe read profile, this is sufficient behavioral disclosure.

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 front-loaded sentence that states the action, resource, lookup key, and result contents without any wasted words. It earns its place entirely.

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 simple complexity (one fully documented required parameter), the presence of an output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly. Nothing critical 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% and the schema already documents the slug parameter with an example. The description restates the 'by slug' lookup but adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, which matches the baseline for full coverage.

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 ('Get'), a precise resource ('one guide's registry row'), and the lookup key ('by slug'). It adds what the result includes ('artifact + routing-surface status'), which distinguishes it from list_guides and other siblings that return full collections.

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 the tool: when you need a single guide registry row identified by slug, as opposed to listing multiple guides. It provides clear context (single vs. list) but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use conditions.

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 the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: the join semantics across entities and the crucial null interpretation — 'treat null as not yet joined, never as no link.' This is not merely restating annotations and materially improves correct usage.

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?

Two dense, purposeful sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose and scope; the second delivers high-value usage patterns and the critical null-semantics warning. No filler or repetition of annotation or 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 100% schema coverage, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description is largely sufficient. It supplies the essential domain-level context: what the capability spine is, how it joins entities, and how to interpret unresolved links. A small gap is that it does not guide an agent on combining filters or when to use sibling tools, but the schema fills most remaining needs.

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 baseline is 3. The description's mentions of min_guides, role, and capability_detail largely restate what the schema already documents; the novel null-semantics guidance concerns output fields rather than parameter meaning. It adds no significant parameter-level information 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Traverse the capability spine joining books, guides, KSAO-grade elements and jobs.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_guide and list_guides, which operate on individual guides or guide lists rather than the cross-entity capability 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?

The description gives explicit usage recipes: min_guides=2 for cross-cutting capabilities, role=<role> for job requirements, and capability_detail=<slug> for hydrated package details. It does not, however, state when to prefer a sibling tool or explicitly say when not to use this tool, so it falls just 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?

Beyond the readOnly and non-destructive annotations, the description discloses that the response includes the distribution roll-up and intentionally includes guides whose home property has no rendering surface. This is a useful behavioral detail about inclusion criteria, and it does not contradict 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?

One well-formed sentence with a front-loaded verb-object phrase and no filler. It packs the essential scope and roll-up detail without burying the main point.

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?

The fully documented input schema, rich output schema, and safety annotations cover most of what an agent needs to call this tool correctly. The only notable gap is the lack of usage guidance versus sibling tools, which keeps it from being fully complete.

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 description itself adds no parameter-level detail, but the input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, enums where applicable, and examples. The schema therefore carries the full parameter semantics, making the baseline 3 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 concrete action and object: 'List the bicycle.guide registry', then specifies the row content (home, status, access, standard, syndication, grounding) plus the distribution roll-up. This makes it unmistakably a broad registry listing tool rather than a single-guide 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?

No guidance is given about when to prefer list_guides over get_guide, list_capabilities, or list_taxonomy. The phrase 'every guide' implies an overview use case, but there are no explicit alternatives, exclusions, or conditions.

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 readOnlyHint and destructiveHint. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: the output is machine-readable data rather than prose, includes live guide counts, and covers specific taxonomy categories. 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?

The description is a single information-dense sentence with the core action front-loaded. Every element—content list, live counts, machine-readable format—adds value without 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?

With no parameters, an output schema present, and annotations covering safety hints, the description provides enough context by enumerating exactly what data is returned and noting the machine-readable format. Nothing important is missing for an agent to invoke this tool 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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is no parameter schema to supplement, and the description appropriately focuses on the tool's output rather than inputs.

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. It enumerates the contents (domains, shelves, series, personas, guide_types, classification conventions), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_guide and list_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 description implies usage when an agent needs the program's taxonomy or classification conventions, and adds 'as machine-readable data rather than prose' as a context signal. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings or mention any exclusions.

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