guide-registry

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it returns artifact and routing-surface status, but it doesn't disclose additional behavioral details such as error behavior or scope limitations. 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?

The description is one concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then adds the specific return aspects. Every part earns its place with no 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 simple one-parameter read-only tool with an output schema and clear annotations, the description is fully sufficient. It states the retrieval approach, the scope, and the included status information, so an agent has enough 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the single slug parameter is already well documented with type and example. The description merely reinforces that lookup is by slug without adding 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 ('Get') with a clear resource ('one guide's registry row') and the key selector ('by slug'). It also names the notable returned aspects ('artifact + routing-surface status'), making it easy to distinguish from the sibling 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 singular 'one guide' combined with 'by slug' clearly signals this is for individual lookups rather than listing. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, though the context makes the intended use obvious.

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/non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that, especially the null semantics: 'ksao_type/canon_component_id are null by design... treat null as not yet joined, never as no link', plus the mode shift where capability_detail hydrates a package rather than querying elements. This is valuable non-obvious behavior the agent would not otherwise know.

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 sentences with no filler: purpose first, then targeted parameter recipes, then a critical caveat about nulls. Every sentence earns its place and important information is 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?

For a tool with 12 optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers the main query patterns, the null interpretation, and the special hydration mode. Combined with the fully documented schema and output schema, an agent has enough to call it correctly. A small gap is the lack of guidance on when this tool is preferable to sibling traversal tools.

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 and the schema already documents all 12 parameters. The description adds extra semantic guidance for min_guides, role, and capability_detail by showing which parameter to use for which analytical need, and it clarifies the meaning of null in output fields. That lifts it 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 names a specific action ('Traverse the capability spine') and the resources joined (books, guides, KSAO elements, jobs), so an agent can tell what domain the tool operates on. It does not explicitly differentiate it from siblings like list_guides or list_taxonomy, which is why it does not earn a 5.

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, condition-triggered guidance: 'min_guides=2 for the cross-cutting capabilities', 'role=<role> for what a job requires', and 'capability_detail=<slug> for one package with its elements and books hydrated'. It does not mention when to prefer this tool over sibling tools or state exclusions, so it stops short of full when-to-use/when-not-to-use coverage.

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 aligns and adds meaningful context: the returned registry includes guides whose home has no rendering surface and provides a distribution roll-up. This gives an agent extra insight beyond 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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence that states the core action first and then compresses the key output scope and roll-up nuance into a compact appositive. No wasted words.

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 a 13-parameter schema that is 100% covered, an output schema, and read-only annotations, the description supplies just enough additional context (registry scope and distribution gap behavior) for an agent 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so every parameter is thoroughly documented with examples and semantics in the schema itself. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable given the schema carries the 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('List the bicycle.guide registry') and enumerates the exact data returned (home, status, access, standard, syndication, grounding, roll-up). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_capabilities and list_taxonomy, which target different registry concepts.

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 clearly frames the tool as a registry-wide listing operation, and the schema makes the optional filters explicit. It does not explicitly say 'use get_guide for a single guide,' but the scope is unambiguous enough that an agent would not mistake this for a detail 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, covering safety. The description adds valuable behavioral context: data is live ('with live guide counts') and delivered as machine-readable data rather than prose, informing expectations about response format.

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 core verb and resource before listing specifics. Every clause contributes meaning — 'live guide counts,' 'machine-readable data,' and the classification conventions all earn their 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 zero-parameter read-only list tool with an output schema and read-only annotations, the description covers what the tool returns and in what spirit (data vs prose). Nothing an agent needs to invoke it 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?

There are zero parameters and the schema is an empty object, so there is nothing for the description to elaborate. Baseline of 4 applies; the enumeration of returned vocabulary elements adds scope clarity, though it is not parameter-related.

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') and resource ('bicycle.guide vocabulary'), enumerating concrete components such as domains, shelves, series, personas, guide_types, and classification conventions. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_guides, which concern guides 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 conveys a clear context: retrieving taxonomy as machine-readable data, with 'rather than prose' hinting at a use case. However, it never names sibling tools or states conditions for choosing this tool over them, leaving the comparison to inference.

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