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 that the result includes 'artifact + routing-surface status,' which is useful context, but it does not disclose behaviors like not-found handling, authentication, or limits beyond what annotations already imply.

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 short sentence with no filler. The core action and identifier are front-loaded, and the additional context about artifact and routing-surface status is appended compactly without 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 a single parameter, high schema coverage, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description covers the essential information an agent needs. It falls just short of complete by not explicitly positioning itself relative to list_guides, but the low complexity makes this 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% and the single required parameter 'slug' is already described in the schema, including an example. The description only repeats 'by slug' without adding extra semantic meaning or edge-case guidance, so it neither hurts nor significantly improves on 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 states a specific verb ('get'), a specific resource ('one guide's registry row'), and the key identifier ('by slug'). It also distinguishes this tool from list_guides by emphasizing the singular 'one' versus the sibling's plural listing behavior.

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?

Use is implied: you need a slug and want one guide's registry row, not a list. However, there is no explicit mention of when to prefer this over list_guides or what to do when the slug does not exist, leaving the routing somewhat implicit.

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 signal read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds a valuable interpretive rule: 'ksao_type/canon_component_id are null by design where unresolved — treat null as not yet joined, never as no link.' This goes beyond the schema and prevents a likely misinterpretation of results. No contradiction with 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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the core purpose, the key filter recipes, and the critical null-meaning caveat. The description is front-loaded with the traversal statement and contains 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?

For a complex 12-parameter traversal tool, the description provides the essential navigational patterns and the most important interpretation trap. The advanced filters such as conflicting, construct_class, and canon_promotion_candidate are left to the detailed schema, which is acceptable given the rich schema and output schema. 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 input schema covers all 12 parameters at 100% with detailed, meaningful descriptions, so the description does not need to re-explain each parameter. The description does add example usage patterns, but these largely restate what the schema already conveys. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Traverse the capability spine joining books, guides (capability packages), KSAO-grade elements and jobs.' It identifies the resource and the relationships it navigates. It does not explicitly name sibling tools, but the traversal framing and the mention of packages, elements, and jobs distinguish it from a plain list or taxonomy fetch.

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 provides concrete, parameter-driven usage guidance: 'Use min_guides=2 for the cross-cutting capabilities... role=<role> for what a job requires, capability_detail=<slug> for one package with its elements and books hydrated.' This tells an agent which filter to reach for in common scenarios. It does not explicitly discuss when not to use the tool or alternatives, 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, establishing that this is a safe read operation. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral scope beyond that: the output includes the distribution roll-up and explicitly includes guides homed to properties with no rendering surface, which is a non-obvious inclusion criterion.

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 well-structured sentence that front-loads the tool's main action and resource, then adds the most valuable output details. No filler or redundancy; 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?

Given the rich 100%-covered input schema, existing output schema, and safety annotations, the description provides enough context: what the tool lists, what special cases are included, and the overall registry scope. It does not need to restate filters or return shapes because those are already carried by the structured metadata.

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 of the 13 parameters already carrying descriptive meaning and examples, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-level semantics, which is acceptable at the baseline 3 since it need not duplicate 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 ('List') and resource ('bicycle.guide registry') and enumerates what the result contains: home, status, access, standard, syndication, grounding, and the distribution roll-up. The registry framing clearly separates it from the singular get_guide and from list_capabilities/list_taxonomy by signaling a full-registry 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?

The description implies a listing/registry use case and hints at scope by mentioning the distribution roll-up, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over list_capabilities or list_taxonomy, nor does it give exclusions. The extensive filter list in the schema implies usage, but the description itself stops at implied context.

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 valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it returns machine-readable data rather than prose, includes live guide counts for shelves, and exposes classification conventions. No contradictions 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 immediately names the resource and then efficiently lists the taxonomy components. Every phrase earns its place; there is no filler or repetition of the title or schema.

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 taxonomy-listing tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description is complete. It enumerates all returned vocabulary categories and clarifies the machine-readable nature of the result, leaving nothing ambiguous for an agent deciding whether and how to invoke it.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to add. Baseline 4 is appropriate since the description instead clarifies the output vocabulary, which is the only relevant semantic content for a no-argument 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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('bicycle.guide vocabulary') and enumerates the exact contents: domains, shelves, series, personas, guide_types, and classification conventions. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_guides and list_capabilities by naming the taxonomy resource rather than the guides or capabilities themselves.

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 tool is for retrieving the guide program's vocabulary as machine-readable data, but it does not explicitly state when to use this over list_guides, list_capabilities, or get_guide. There is clear context about what it returns, but no exclusions or alternative-routing guidance.

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