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, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the result includes 'artifact + routing-surface status,' which is useful context, but it doesn't disclose error behavior (e.g., what happens with an unknown slug) or clarify the unusual 'registry row' phrasing. With annotations present, the bar is lower; this meets it without exceeding.

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 17-word sentence with zero filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the 'with its artifact + routing-surface status' qualifier trails economically behind it.

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 single-parameter, read-only getter with an output schema and safety annotations, the description covers what it does, how it retrieves (by slug), and what is included in the result. The only gaps are domain-specific jargon ('registry row', 'routing-surface') and explicit sibling routing, but the output schema mitigates the jargon and the tool's simplicity keeps the risk low.

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% — the schema already documents slug with a concrete example ('start-a-company'). The description only reinforces 'by slug' without adding format, case-sensitivity, or usage detail, so it holds at the baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get'), a precise resource ('one guide's registry row'), and the retrieval mechanism ('by slug'). The singular 'one' clearly distinguishes it from sibling list_guides, list_capabilities, and list_taxonomy, so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

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 context — call this when you have a specific slug and want a single guide's row — but it never explicitly names list_guides as the alternative for batch listing or states when-not-to-use. No exclusions or routing conditions are given.

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 description adds important behavioral context beyond the annotations: null values for ksao_type and canon_component_id are intentional and mean 'not yet joined', not 'no link'. This prevents a common misinterpretation. Since readOnlyHint is already true, the description does not need to restate safety.

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 first states the core purpose, the second provides the most common usage modes, and the third clarifies a critical null-handling behavior. It is compact, front-loaded, and free of 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 sophisticated 12-parameter tool, the description covers the key traversal modes and the most surprising output semantics. The output schema and rich parameter descriptions fill in remaining details, so 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 12 parameters thoroughly. The description reinforces a few key parameters (min_guides, role, capability_detail) but does not add substantial new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. 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 uses a specific verb ('traverse') and a clear resource ('the capability spine') while naming the entities it joins: books, guides, KSAO elements, and jobs. It also demonstrates distinct usage modes via parameters, making it easy to differentiate from the sibling tools like list_guides or get_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 gives actionable guidance for common patterns: min_guides=2 for cross-cutting capabilities, role for job requirements, and capability_detail for a hydrated single package. It does not explicitly contrast this tool with siblings, but the context is clear enough that an agent can decide when to use it.

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 establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context by noting the registry includes the distribution roll-up and even guides homed to a property with no rendering surface, which is non-obvious behavior beyond the basic read-only guarantee.

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, information-dense sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then packs the key output contents and the notable roll-up edge case. There is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 read-only listing tool with no required parameters, a 13-parameter input schema with 100% coverage, and an output schema present, the description is complete. It conveys scope, contents, and the special inclusion of unrendered-home guides without over-explaining.

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?

All 13 parameters have schema descriptions covering 100% of the parameter surface, so the schema carries the parameter-documentation load. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics, but it also does not need to; the baseline 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 a precise resource ('the bicycle.guide registry'), then enumerates the fields returned (home, status, access, standard, syndication, grounding) and the aggregation (distribution roll-up). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling get_guide, list_capabilities, and list_taxonomy 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 establishes a clear context: this is the tool to call to view the full guide registry with roll-up information. It does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives, but the registry-scope wording is enough for an agent to differentiate it from single-guide retrieval (get_guide) and capability/taxonomy listings.

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 meaningful behavioral context: shelves come with 'live guide counts' and the result is delivered 'as machine-readable data rather than prose.' 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?

A single sentence front-loads the resource name, then packs in the full content list and a format contrast without filler. Every clause adds useful information.

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 endpoint with an output schema and safety annotations, the description names all returned categories and the response format. No decision-relevant 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?

The tool has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to add about inputs. The baseline of 4 applies 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and a concrete resource ('bicycle.guide vocabulary'), then enumerates exactly what is included: domains, shelves, series, personas, guide_types, and classification conventions. This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and clearly distinct from sibling tools like get_guide or list_guides.

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 tool for retrieving taxonomy and classification data and contrasts it with 'prose,' but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over siblings such as list_capabilities or get_guide. Usage context is inferable rather than directly specified.

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