guide-registry

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds some context by mentioning the artifact and routing-surface status included in the result, but it does not disclose much behavioral detail beyond that. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 focused sentence that front-loads the operation and immediately includes the differentiating details. Every phrase earns its place 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 one-parameter read-only lookup with an output schema and clear annotations, the description is nearly complete. It could be slightly stronger by clarifying the meaning of 'registry row' or addressing not-found behavior, but those are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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 schema already documents the only parameter, slug, with an example, so schema description coverage is 100%. The description confirms lookup 'by slug' but adds little semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 and resource: 'Get one guide's registry row by slug'. It also adds distinctive scope, 'with its artifact + routing-surface status', which sets it apart from the sibling list tools and from list_guides in particular.

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 usage context clear by requiring a slug and retrieving a single guide's registry row, which contrasts naturally with listing all guides. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool.

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 the tool read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: 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 prevents a likely misinterpretation and goes beyond what the annotations alone convey.

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 focused sentences with no filler: purpose first, then usage recipes, then a critical null-handling caveat. Every sentence earns its place and the most important operational warnings are 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?

Given 12 parameters, the schema's 100% coverage, and an output schema, the description is largely complete for correct invocation. It captures the main usage modes and a key semantic trap. It falls just short of full completeness because it does not guide the agent on when to choose this tool over siblings like get_guide or list_taxonomy.

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 has 100% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description's parameter mentions (min_guides, role, capability_detail) largely restate what the schema already says rather than adding new semantic meaning, so it does not elevate the score above baseline.

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 resource ('the capability spine joining books, guides, KSAO-grade elements and jobs'), which clearly conveys what the tool does. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_guide and list_guides through its emphasis on cross-entity traversal and joining, though it does not explicitly name a sibling contrast.

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 parameter-level guidance: use min_guides=2 for cross-cutting capabilities, role=<role> for job requirements, and capability_detail=<slug> for a hydrated package with elements and books. It provides clear context for common queries, though it does not state exclusions or explicitly compare against sibling tools.

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 safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: the response includes the distribution roll-up and explicitly includes guides homed to a property with no rendering surface. 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?

One dense, well-front-loaded sentence establishes the verb, resource, and scope, then adds the noteworthy roll-up behavior without wasted words. Every clause 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 an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return values. The rich parameter schema, annotations, and this description together give an agent enough to invoke the tool correctly. Explicit sibling-routing guidance would make it fully complete, but the scope and edge cases are otherwise clear.

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 13 parameters in detail, including filters like home, access, status, row shape, and home_unrouted. The description adds no 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?

The description starts with a specific verb + resource ('List the bicycle.guide registry') and enumerates what is returned: every guide's home, status, access, standard, syndication, grounding, plus the distribution roll-up. This clearly distinguishes it from get_guide (single-guide lookup) and the capability/taxonomy 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 implies this is the registry-wide listing tool, but it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention that get_guide is for a single guide or that list_capabilities/list_taxonomy cover other registries, so the agent must infer the routing.

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 useful behavioral context by noting 'live guide counts' and machine-readable output rather than prose, but it does not disclose other operational details such as pagination, performance, or response format, though the output schema likely covers the latter.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and remains one sentence, but the parenthetical list is long and dense. Each element adds useful specificity, so the length is justifiable, though a slightly tighter structure would improve scannability.

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 no parameters, read-only annotations, and an output schema present, the description carries the full load of explaining what this tool offers. It enumerates all taxonomy facets and explicitly frames the output as machine-readable data, so an agent has enough context to select and 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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema is effectively empty with 100% coverage, so parameter semantics are trivially satisfied. The description need not explain parameters that do not exist.

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 action ('Get') and a specific resource ('the bicycle.guide vocabulary'), then enumerates exactly what is included: domains, shelves, series, personas, guide_types, and classification conventions. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_guide and list_guides, which target individual guides or the guide list 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 it clear that this tool is for retrieving the vocabulary and classification conventions as machine-readable data, which gives strong context for when to use it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state exclusions, so it stops short of full routing guidance, but the intended use is evident.

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