guide-registry

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds some context about returned status fields, but no significant behavioral traits beyond what annotations and the output schema already convey. 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 with no filler. Every phrase earns its place, and the core retrieval action is stated first, with the extra return detail appended efficiently.

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, fully documented parameter, an output schema present, and rich annotations, the description is complete. An agent has enough information to invoke the tool correctly without needing more 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the slug parameter. The description's 'by slug' phrase reinforces that the tool retrieves by slug but does not add meaning beyond the schema's example and type.

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: 'Get one guide's registry row by slug,' which is clearly distinct from the sibling listing tools. It also specifies the additional return context ('artifact + routing-surface status'), making the tool's 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?

Usage is implied rather than explicit: 'by slug' signals that this is for retrieving a single known guide, while siblings like list_guides handle enumeration. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide any exclusion criteria.

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 and destructiveHint annotations, the description adds valuable behavioral context: it explains 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'. It also discloses hydration behavior for capability_detail, which is not visible in the annotations or schema 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?

The description is three sentences and every sentence earns its place: the first states the core purpose, the second gives the most important usage patterns, and the third clarifies a critical null-semantics caveat. The highest-value 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?

With 12 parameters, an output schema, and read-only annotations, the description does not need to repeat schema details. It covers the main usage modes, the null behavior, and the joining/hydration semantics, which is sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly. It could have named siblings to fully orient the agent, but this 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the intent behind key parameters: min_guides=2 finds cross-cutting capabilities, role returns job-required elements, and capability_detail returns a hydrated package. This extra semantic layer lifts the score.

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') while naming the joined entities: books, guides, KSAO-grade elements and jobs. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_guide and list_guides by positioning it as a cross-entity traversal tool.

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 patterns for min_guides=2, role, and capability_detail, which tells an agent how to accomplish common goals. It does not explicitly name sibling tools or state when not to use this tool, but the traversal framing plus the parameter-level guidance supplies clear practical direction.

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, and the description adds valuable scope details: it lists every guide's fields and explicitly includes guides homed to properties with no rendering surface in the distribution roll-up. This behavior goes beyond what the schema and annotations express.

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 with an em-dash list of field categories and a parenthetical clarifying roll-up inclusion. Every part earns its place, with 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?

The output schema covers return shape, annotations cover safety, and the description adds the key conceptual detail—the distribution roll-up and inclusion of unrendered guides. For a read-only registry listing tool with optional filters, no critical information 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 all 13 parameters, so the schema already handles parameter meaning. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, which is acceptable; baseline 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 identifies a concrete verb and resource: 'List the bicycle.guide registry' and enumerates the returned fields (home, status, access, standard, syndication, grounding, distribution roll-up). This is specific enough to distinguish from siblings like get_guide, list_capabilities, and 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 description makes clear this is the tool for enumerating the full guide registry, including the roll-up of guides with no rendering surface. It does not explicitly name get_guide as the alternative for single-guide lookups, but the context is clear and no exclusions are needed.

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 readOnlyHint annotation already covers safety, and the description adds context by indicating the tool returns vocabulary data rather than performing actions. It does not describe side effects, but none are expected given the annotation.

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 clear sentence that packs useful detail about what the vocabulary includes. It is slightly dense with enumerated items but remains concise and understandable.

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 zero parameters and an output schema available, the description sufficiently communicates the tool's purpose and scope. It could mention whether the result is a flat list or structured object, but the output schema likely covers 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?

There are no parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%, so no additional parameter explanation is needed. The description focuses on the returned vocabulary content, which 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 clearly states the tool gets the bicycle.guide vocabulary and enumerates its contents (domains, shelves, series, personas, guide_types, classification conventions). It is specific and distinct from siblings like list_guides and 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 description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. It mentions 'as machine-readable data rather than prose' but provides no decision guidance or comparison to list_guides/list_capabilities.

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