guide-registry

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context by specifying that the result includes artifact and routing-surface status, which tells the agent what kind of data to expect beyond a plain registry row.

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, tightly written sentence that front-loads the operation and resource. Every phrase earns its place and there is no redundant 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 simple read-only lookup with one required parameter, an output schema, and clear annotations, the description is fully sufficient. It does not need to explain return values because the output schema already does that.

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 input schema fully documents the single slug parameter with 100% coverage and an example. The description repeats 'by slug' but adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a precise resource ('one guide's registry row'), and the lookup mechanism ('by slug'). The singular 'one' and the mention of 'artifact + routing-surface status' clearly distinguish this from the sibling list tools.

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 a specific guide slug is known and a single registry row is needed. It does not explicitly say 'use list_guides when you want all guides,' so the routing guidance is somewhat implied rather than stated.

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?

The annotations already mark this as read-only, and the description adds significant behavioral context beyond that: nulls mean 'not yet joined' rather than 'no link', and capability_detail returns one capability with books hydrated rather than a normal element query. This prevents common misinterpretations when the agent inspects 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 sentences front-load the core purpose, then give targeted usage guidance, then close with a crucial null-handling caveat. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler or 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?

With 12 optional parameters, an output schema, and 100% schema description coverage, the description orients the agent to the main modes and a subtle null semantics trap. It does not summarize every filter, but the schema descriptions already cover those details adequately.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that min_guides=2 selects the cross-cutting spine and that capability_detail switches the query mode to hydrated package retrieval, which the raw schema descriptions do not emphasize.

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 specific resource ('the capability spine joining books, guides ... KSAO-grade elements and jobs'), making the tool's cross-entity purpose immediately clear. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_guides (guides only) and get_guide (single guide), so an agent can infer the intended scope without opening 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 gives explicit usage modes: min_guides=2 for cross-cutting capabilities, role=<role> for job requirements, and capability_detail=<slug> for a hydrated package. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a full 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 communicate read-only safety. The description adds valuable non-obvious behavioral context: the listing includes the distribution roll-up and even guides homed to a property with no rendering surface. No contradictions 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, front-loaded sentence that starts with the operation and resource, then efficiently lists the relevant output scope. Every element 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 a complete output schema, fully documented parameters, and annotations covering read-only behavior, the description provides the remaining context—particularly the inclusion of unrouted guides—needed to invoke the 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%, and all 13 optional parameters are already documented. The description does not add parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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 states a clear operation and resource: 'List the bicycle.guide registry' and enumerates the exact fields returned. It is distinct from siblings by the registry scope, though it does not explicitly contrast with list_capabilities or 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 use case is implied by the phrase 'List the bicycle.guide registry' and the filter parameters, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it name alternatives like get_guide.

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 description does not need to restate safety. It adds minor behavioral context by mentioning 'live guide counts' and the machine-readable format, but it does not cover auth, rate limits, or other potential behavioral nuances. 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 sentence that front-loads the resource ('bicycle.guide vocabulary') and then delivers a dense, useful list of included elements. There is no filler, repetition, or ambiguity; every phrase 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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with an output schema, the description adequately covers the semantic content and format. It could be more complete by explicitly mentioning when to use it over sibling list tools, but that gap is more about usage guidance than contextual 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?

The tool has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The zero-parameter baseline of 4 applies; the description adds nothing about params because nothing is needed.

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 names a precise resource: the 'bicycle.guide vocabulary'. It enumerates the exact contents (domains, shelves, series, personas, guide_types, classification conventions) and explicitly contrasts with 'prose', making the tool's scope unmistakable and distinct from 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 phrase 'as machine-readable data rather than prose' gives some context for when to use this tool, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. With siblings like list_guides available, the routing decision is left mostly to inference.

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