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, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the result includes artifact and routing-surface status, which is useful behavioral context, but it does not discuss possible absence/error behavior or what 'registry row' excludes.

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 one tightly written sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, then appends the useful status detail without unnecessary elaboration.

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-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, an output schema present, and safe annotations, the description is complete enough. It tells the agent exactly what the tool returns conceptually, and nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 provides 100% coverage for the single slug parameter, including an example ('start-a-company'). The description only repeats that lookup is by slug and does not add significant meaning beyond 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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Get one guide's registry row') and identifies the key retrieval criterion ('by slug'). It also names the returned status info, and the contrast with list_guides makes the single-item scope clear, so the tool is easily distinguished from its 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 description makes the intended use clear: retrieve exactly one guide registry row when you have its slug. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the singular 'one guide' and the slug parameter provide sufficient context against the sibling list_guides 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?

Beyond the readOnly/destructive annotations, it discloses the important null-by-design behavior ('treat null as not yet joined, never as no link') and explains that capability_detail switches the response to a hydrated single-capability mode. This prevents a common misinterpretation of null values without contradicting any 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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, targeted usage patterns, and a critical null-semantics caveat. Key guidance is front-loaded before the caveat, and there is no redundant restatement of schema content.

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 query tool with an output schema and read-only annotations, the description covers the main invocation modes and the trickiest semantic trap (nulls). The remaining parameter details live in a fully described schema, so nothing essential for correct invocation 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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description materially enriches key parameters: it explains the intent behind min_guides=2, role, capability_detail hydration, and the construct_class person-attribute distinction. These are purpose-level insights an agent cannot get from the parameter descriptions alone.

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 ('traverse') plus a clear resource graph ('capability spine joining books, guides (capability packages), KSAO-grade elements and jobs'), which immediately tells an agent what the tool operates on and how it differs from the guide-only siblings. Even without naming siblings, the cross-entity joining scope distinguishes this from get_guide/list_guides/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?

It gives actionable parameter-level guidance: min_guides=2 for cross-cutting capabilities, role=<role> for job requirements, and capability_detail=<slug> for hydrated package retrieval. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings or provide exclusionary 'when-not-to-use' guidance.

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, lowering the bar. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying the full set of returned registry fields and explicitly including guides homed to properties with no rendering surface. It does not discuss pagination or edge behavior beyond the schema, but the output schema and annotations cover much of that.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then lists the returned content without filler. Every phrase earns its place, and the important edge case about no rendering surface is included without bloating the description.

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 100%-documented schema, safety annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. It captures the scope, the roll-up behavior, and an important distribution-gap inclusion that the schema alone does not communicate.

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 each parameter already documented with examples and default behavior. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('bicycle.guide registry') and enumerates the exact contents: home, status, access, standard, syndication, grounding, plus the distribution roll-up. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_guide, which targets a single guide.

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 the use case: get a broad inventory of the guide registry, including distribution gaps. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this over get_guide, list_capabilities, or list_taxonomy, and states no exclusionary conditions.

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 safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: it returns machine-readable data rather than prose, and mentions 'live guide counts', implying dynamic counts rather than static values.

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 sentence that front-loads 'Get the bicycle.guide vocabulary' before listing specific contents. Every element earns its place; no filler or redundant 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 zero-parameter read-only vocabulary listing, the description covers what is returned (domains, shelves, series, personas, guide_types, conventions) and the output format (machine-readable data). An output schema exists, so structural details can be inferred from there.

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 zero parameters, so the schema fully covers parameter needs. The description doesn't need to explain parameter semantics; the 'machine-readable data rather than prose' phrasing gives a hint about the return format, which is adequate.

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 a precise resource ('bicycle.guide vocabulary'), enumerating concrete components like domains, shelves, series, personas, and guide_types. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on vocabulary rather than individual guides or 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 its use case: when an agent needs taxonomy/classification data rather than guide content or capabilities. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the resource specificity makes the context clear.

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