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 useful context about what is included in the result, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as error cases, auth requirements, or side effects. It adds some value without contradicting 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 states the action, target, selector, and returned context without any filler. Every word 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 simple single-item read operation with one fully documented parameter, an output schema, and read-only annotations, the description is nearly complete. It does not mention what happens for an unknown slug, but that is not critical for a basic lookup tool.

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 already fully documents the slug parameter with an example. The description's mention of 'by slug' does not add new semantic detail beyond the schema, so the high schema coverage 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') with a specific resource ('one guide's registry row') and identifies the selector ('by slug'), plus the fields returned ('artifact + routing-surface status'). This clearly distinguishes it from the list_* siblings.

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 'by slug' phrasing conveys that this tool is for fetching a single known guide rather than enumerating guides. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear and no exclusions are needed for a simple lookup.

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 critical behavior beyond that: ksao_type/canon_component_id are null by design and should be interpreted as 'not yet joined', not 'no link'. This is a meaningful, non-obvious caveat that prevents misuse.

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 accomplish a lot: primary purpose, key usage modes, and an important null-handling caveat. The guidance is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place without 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?

With an output schema present and all 12 parameters documented in the schema, the description covers the remaining non-obvious selection logic and interpretation pitfalls. An agent can correctly choose invocation modes and interpret unresolved fields.

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 value beyond the schema by explaining the intent of min_guides, role, and capability_detail, and by clarifying the nullable canon fields. It doesn't add semantic detail for every parameter, but it strengthens the most decision-relevant ones.

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 operation ('Traverse the capability spine') over a concrete resource graph: books, guides/capability packages, KSAO elements, and jobs. The title and first sentence together distinguish it from the sibling list/get tools by emphasizing the joined traversal rather than a flat listing.

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?

It gives explicit conditions for min_guides=2 ('cross-cutting capabilities'), role ('what a job requires'), and capability_detail ('one package with its elements and books hydrated'). It does not explicitly contrast this tool against the sibling tools, 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 declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds non-obvious inclusion behavior: the roll-up includes guides homed to a property with no rendering surface. This extra detail goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately names the resource and scope, then efficiently packs the field list and roll-up nuance into one clause. Every element 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?

Given the rich 13-parameter schema, output schema, and safety annotations, the description only needs to establish scope and notable inclusions, which it does by mentioning every guide and the no-rendering-surface roll-up. No behavior needed to call the tool correctly 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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage across all 13 optional parameters, including defaults, max limit, enums, and filter semantics. The description itself adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 applies; the schema carries the full 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' and enumerates the exact fields returned (home, status, access, standard, syndication, grounding, distribution roll-up). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_guide (single guide) and list_capabilities/list_taxonomy (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 positions this as the registry-wide list ('every guide's ... distribution roll-up'), making the overview use case clear. It does not explicitly name sibling tools or state when not to use it, but the contrast with get_guide and the other list tools is reasonably inferable from the text.

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 indicate read-only, non-destructive behavior, so the description need not repeat that. It adds some useful context by noting 'live guide counts' and that the result is 'machine-readable data rather than prose,' but it does not disclose other behavioral traits like ordering, completeness, or response specifics.

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 purpose and then lists concrete deliverables. It is longer than ideal due to the many category names, but every listed item adds useful information and there is no wasted prose.

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 states what the tool returns, in what form, and includes enough detail to distinguish it from siblings. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so parameter semantics are largely not applicable; the schema covers everything. The description adds value by enumerating the taxonomy categories and conventions the caller will receive, exceeding the baseline for a no-parameter tool.

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 resource: 'Get the bicycle.guide vocabulary.' It then enumerates exactly what is included (domains, shelves, series, personas, guide_types, and classification conventions), which clearly distinguishes it 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 description implies usage: an agent should call this when it needs the structured taxonomy or classification conventions rather than guides or capabilities. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus its siblings or mention any exclusion conditions.

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