guide-registry

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 context about returning registry-row data with artifact and routing-surface status, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as error behavior or rate limits. This is adequate but not rich.

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 one compact sentence that front-loads the primary action and resource, then appends the useful detail about artifact and routing-surface status. Every word contributes value and there is no 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?

This is a simple, single-parameter read tool with an output schema available and annotations covering safety. The description provides enough information for an agent to select and invoke it correctly; no critical calling context 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% for the single 'slug' parameter, which is already documented with an example. The description only repeats 'by slug' and adds no new parameter-level meaning, so it meets the baseline without exceeding it.

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') and a specific resource ('one guide's registry row') and identifies the unique lookup key ('by slug'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling list tools by emphasizing a single item rather than a collection.

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 when to use this tool: when you need a specific guide by slug, including its artifact and routing-surface status. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer list_guides or other siblings, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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 readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses important behavior: ksao_type/canon_component_id are null by design where unresolved, and null must be interpreted as 'not yet joined' rather than 'no link'. This is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavioral context an agent needs to correctly interpret 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?

The description is compact and well-structured: a one-sentence overview of what the tool does, a single sentence of high-value usage examples, and a critical null-handling caveat. Every sentence earns its place and there is no 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?

For a 12-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage and an output schema, the description provides the missing conceptual glue: cross-entity traversal, key usage patterns, and the meaning of unresolved links. Nothing essential is absent for an agent to select and 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the intent behind key parameters (min_guides, role, capability_detail) and by clarifying null semantics for two fields. It does not add meaning for every parameter, but the schema already covers the rest well.

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 a clear resource ('the capability spine joining books, guides, KSAO-grade elements and jobs'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing relationship traversal across entities rather than listing a single entity type.

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 concrete 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 explicitly contrast this tool with list_guides or list_taxonomy, but it provides clear, actionable context for when to use specific parameter modes.

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, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations by specifying the returned coverage details, including syndication, grounding, and the roll-up that includes guides homed to properties without a rendering surface. This gives the agent a concrete sense of what the registry list exposes.

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 core action and resource, then efficiently enumerates the meaningful included fields and the notable roll-up behavior. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary qualification.

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 a complete input schema, an output schema present, and safety annotations already supplied, the description covers the main remaining contextual need: what the registry listing includes and that it surfaces distribution gaps. The tool is a straightforward read-only list operation, and the description is sufficient for an agent to select and 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%, so the input schema already documents all 13 parameters with examples and type details. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies. It does not need to compensate for any schema gaps.

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 the specific resource (bicycle.guide registry) and the action (list), and enumerates the fields included, so an agent can tell this from get_guide, list_capabilities, and list_taxonomy without opening the schema. The scope 'every guide' plus the distribution roll-up makes the tool's distinct purpose 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 makes the listing scope clear, so an agent can infer this is for registry-wide enumeration rather than fetching one guide or listing a different entity type. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this over get_guide or list_capabilities, or when not to use it. Usage is implied but not directly guided.

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. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: 'live guide counts' signals that shelf counts are current/dynamic, and 'machine-readable data rather than prose' tells the agent the output is structured, not narrative. 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?

A single, information-dense sentence with the core action front-loaded ('Get the bicycle.guide vocabulary') followed by a precise enumeration of contents. Every phrase adds value, with 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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It specifies what data is included and the format (machine-readable), and annotations cover the safety profile. Nothing necessary for correct invocation 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the schema confirms an empty object. Nothing is missing in this dimension.

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 resource ('bicycle.guide vocabulary'), then enumerates the exact components returned: domains, shelves with live guide counts, series, personas, guide_types, and classification conventions. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_guides and list_capabilities, which would return different resource types.

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: if you need vocabulary/taxonomy data, use this tool. It clarifies that the data is machine-readable rather than prose, which hints at when it is appropriate. However, it never explicitly mentions alternatives (e.g., list_guides or list_capabilities) or states when not to use this tool, leaving routing largely to inference.

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