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 that the tool also returns artifact and routing-surface status, which is useful context beyond the raw schema. It does not go deeper (e.g., 404 behavior for unknown slugs, pagination, or whether status takes time to propagate), so it adds moderate value beyond 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 direct sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then appends the status qualifier. Every word earns its place, and the information is well-ordered for quick agent parsing.

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, single-parameter, get-by-slug tool with an output schema present and annotations covering safety, only a single description sentence is needed. The description is nearly complete; the only minor gap is not explaining the format of the artifact and routing-surface status fields, but since an output schema exists that likely covers it, this is negligible.

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 single parameter 'slug' has a clear description and example ('start-a-company'). The description confirms the slug is the lookup key, but does not add new semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema handles the parameter documentation.

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 action ('Get one guide's registry row by slug') and specifies the resource (guide registry row) plus the additional status fields (artifact + routing-surface status). It is clear and distinguishes the tool from siblings like list_guides (which lists multiple guides) and list_capabilities/list_taxonomy (different resource types), though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 indicates 'by slug' as the key lookup mechanism, implying this is the tool to use when you need a single guide's full registry row with status info. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer list_guides over this tool (e.g., for listing all guides without status details) or mention any exclusions or context for using it.

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 description adds important behavioral context beyond the readOnly annotation: null values in ksao_type/canon_component_id are 'not yet joined', never 'no link'. This prevents a common misreading of query results. It also clarifies that capability_detail hydrates books and elements, giving the agent a better mental model of the response.

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 at three sentences: the first defines scope, the second gives concrete usage guidance, and the third provides a critical null-semantics caveat. Every sentence earns its place, and the most actionable information 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?

For a 12-parameter tool with full schema coverage, an output schema, and read-only annotations, the description covers the essential invocation patterns and the key data-interpretation trap. It could be slightly stronger with an explicit note about when list_guides or list_taxonomy should be used instead, 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 the schema already documents all 12 parameters. The description adds value by explaining the semantic intent of three key parameters (min_guides, role, capability_detail) and how they map to common use cases. It does not repeat the remaining parameter details, but those are already covered by 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 names a specific verb ('Traverse') and a specific resource (the capability spine joining books, guides, KSAO elements, and jobs), so an agent can tell this is a cross-entity query tool rather than a single-entity getter. The title reinforces the scope. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like get_guide or list_guides, which focus on individual entities.

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 use-case recipes: min_guides=2 for cross-cutting capabilities, role=<role> for job requirements, and capability_detail=<slug> for a hydrated package. It does not explicitly state when to prefer one of the sibling tools or when not to use this tool, but the provided usage context is clear and actionable.

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 safe read-only behavior is covered. The description adds useful context about the distribution roll-up including guides without a rendering surface, but it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as pagination behavior or default limits. 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 dense sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then names the key contents. Every clause adds information about what the registry listing includes; 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?

Given the rich output schema, 100% parameter coverage, and read-only annotations, the description is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's scope. It highlights the notable distribution roll-up behavior. The only gap is explicit routing guidance versus siblings, which is already captured under usage guidelines.

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%, with all 13 optional parameters described in the input schema. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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?

Description uses a specific verb ('List') and names the exact resource ('bicycle.guide registry'), enumerating 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_taxonomy/list_capabilities (different registry contents).

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 clear what the tool returns but does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives or when not to use it. Usage is implied rather than spelled out; no sibling comparisons or exclusion conditions are given.

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 read-only, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. On top of that, the description adds useful behavioral context: shelves carry 'live guide counts,' and data is delivered 'as machine-readable data rather than prose,' which informs the agent about freshness and output format. 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 front-loaded sentence that leads with the action and then lists the vocabulary contents. It is slightly dense due to the enumerations and parentheticals, but there is little wasted wording.

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 parameterless, read-only tool with an output schema and annotations covering safety, the description is complete: it names every category the taxonomy includes and notes the live-count behavior. Nothing return-related is needed because an output schema exists.

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 there is nothing for the description to document. Per the baseline for parameterless tools, the description's content is sufficient without adding parameter-level 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 verb and object — 'Get the bicycle.guide vocabulary' — and enumerates the categories it returns: domains, shelves, series, personas, guide_types, and classification conventions. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like list_guides or get_guide, which would return actual guides rather than the 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 makes the data domain clear, so an agent can infer this tool is for vocabulary/classification lookups rather than guide content. However, it never explicitly states when to use it over list_guides, get_guide, or list_capabilities, nor does it provide 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.