guide-registry

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

Annotations already establish readOnly and non-destructive semantics, so the description does not need to re-state safety. It adds the meaningful detail that the result includes artifact and routing-surface status, but otherwise no behavioral caveats such as missing rows or error cases are 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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the primary operation and lookup key; every phrase contributes, and no redundant schema repetition. Ideal size for a simple one-parameter tool.

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 single required parameter, existing output schema, and read-only annotations, the description covers what the tool is for and what its result contains. No critical usage or behavioral information 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 only parameter, slug, is fully described in the schema with an example, so the description adds little beyond restating that lookup is 'by slug.' Baseline 3 is appropriate due to 100% schema 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?

States a direct verb 'Get' with a specific resource 'one guide's registry row' and the lookup key 'slug'; this clearly distinguishes it from list_guides (plural listing) and the other sibling capabilities. The added detail about artifact and routing-surface status makes the operation unambiguous.

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 the tool is for single-item lookup by slug but does not explicitly say when to choose it over list_guides or list_taxonomy, nor state exclusions. An agent must infer the 'known slug vs. enumerate all' distinction from the tool name and siblings.

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 provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: it warns that ksao_type/canon_component_id are null by design and instructs the agent to interpret null as 'not yet joined' rather than 'no link.' This is valuable operational nuance not available from the annotations alone.

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 sentences carry substantial information: the core purpose, three parameter-driven usage patterns, and a null-semantics caveat. There is no filler and the most important guidance is front-loaded.

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 a complex tool with 12 optional parameters, an output schema, and annotations, the description covers the essential conceptual model and key behavioral caveats. It does not explicitly map every parameter or provide a full worked example, but the schema fills those gaps, so the definition is reasonably complete for an agent to use 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?

The schema already documents all 12 parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra semantics for key parameters like min_guides, role, and capability_detail, including the hydrated-package behavior and null-handling guidance, which goes beyond the schema entries.

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 ('Traverse') and an explicit resource ('the capability spine') while enumerating the joined entity types: books, guides, KSAO elements, and jobs. This clearly separates it from sibling tools like get_guide or list_guides, which focus 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?

The description gives explicit parameter-level use cases: min_guides=2 for cross-cutting capabilities, role=<role> for job requirements, and capability_detail=<slug> for hydrated packages. It does not explicitly contrast this tool with siblings or state when not to use it, 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 establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: the listing includes not just guides but the distribution roll-up, and explicitly includes guides homed to a property with no rendering surface. No contradiction 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 front-loaded sentence that names the resource first, then packs the scope, fields, and an important edge case into a compact and readable form. There is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 read-only registry listing with a rich output schema and 13 optional filters, the description gives enough information about output scope and an important inclusion edge case. It could be slightly more complete by explicitly routing users to get_guide for single-guide lookups, but that is 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%, so all 13 parameters are individually documented with types, examples, and defaults. The tool description does not add parameter-level meaning, but it doesn't need to; the schema already carries that burden.

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?

Description states a specific verb and resource: 'List the bicycle.guide registry', then enumerates the fields returned (home, status, access, standard, syndication, grounding) and the distribution roll-up. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_guide (single guide) and list_capabilities/list_taxonomy (other registries) by scope and subject.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and description: call this when you need the full guide registry or a filtered listing. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling tools like get_guide for a single guide, nor does it mention any exclusions or 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 mark this as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by noting the data is returned 'as machine-readable data rather than prose' and that shelves include 'live guide counts', which indicates dynamic, computed values.

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 well-structured sentence that front-loads the resource name and immediately enumerates the included data elements. Every phrase adds value, including the 'machine-readable data rather than prose' 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 zero-parameter read-only tool with an output schema and clear annotations, the description is complete. It tells the agent exactly what data will be returned, covering the taxonomy components and conventions without unnecessary detail.

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 schema imposes no burden. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing missing.

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 the specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource, 'bicycle.guide vocabulary', and enumerates the exact contents: domains, shelves, series, personas, guide_types, and classification conventions. This makes it easy to distinguish from siblings like list_guides and list_capabilities, which target 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 implies this tool is for retrieving the taxonomy/vocabulary rather than individual guides or capabilities, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over list_guides, get_guide, or list_capabilities. No exclusion criteria or alternative routing is provided.

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