guide-registry

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context by disclosing that the result includes the registry row plus artifact and routing-surface status. It does not contradict 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, well-structured sentence. It front-loads the core action and resource, then appends the relevant status detail without any 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 simple one-parameter read-only tool with a full output schema and clear annotations, the description provides enough context to select and invoke the tool correctly. Nothing essential 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 schema already fully documents the slug parameter with 100% coverage and a concrete example ('start-a-company'). The description confirms the parameter is the lookup key via 'by slug' but adds no additional semantic detail 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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('one guide's registry row'), and the identifying criterion ('by slug'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling list tools by emphasizing 'one' guide rather than a collection.

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 indicates this is for fetching a single guide when the slug is already known, and the singular framing contrasts with the sibling list tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing 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 establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable non-obvious behavior: ksao_type/canon_component_id are null by design, and null must be read as 'not yet joined' rather than 'no link'. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations and does not contradict them.

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?

Two dense sentences with no filler: the first scopes the resource, and the second packs the highest-value usage recipes plus the critical null caveat. For a tool with 12 parameters, this is appropriately tight and 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?

With a full output schema, 100% schema description coverage, and read-only annotations, the remaining burden on the description is orientation and caveats. It supplies both: the join semantics across entities and the 'null is unresolved' rule. Nothing needed for safe 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds workflow-level meaning by showing how to use min_guides, role, and capability_detail for specific intents, and by clarifying the null semantics for filtering and interpreting results. This goes beyond restating 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 action ('Traverse') and a precise resource ('capability spine' joining books, guides, KSAO elements, and jobs), then gives concrete filter modes. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like list_guides or list_taxonomy, so it misses the full 5, but the scope is clear enough to orient an agent.

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 explicit recipes: min_guides=2 for cross-cutting capabilities, role=<role> for job-required elements, and capability_detail=<slug> for a hydrated package. This tells the agent when to use each mode, though it does not explicitly say when to prefer sibling tools such as list_guides or list_taxonomy.

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 read-only, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: it returns a broad set of registry fields and includes the distribution roll-up, explicitly covering guides homed to properties with no rendering surface. This helps the agent understand the tool's inclusive scope.

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, tightly packed sentence that front-loads the core operation and scope before adding the notable roll-up edge case. Every phrase earns its place and there is no redundant filler.

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 input schema (all parameters described), the output schema, and read-only annotations, the description is complete enough for safe and correct invocation. It adds the crucial non-obvious detail that unrendered homes are included in the roll-up, which is exactly the kind of context the agent needs.

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 fully documents all 13 optional filters and the fields enum. The description itself does not add parameter-level meaning, which meets but does not exceed the 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 verb and resource: 'List the bicycle.guide registry', and spells out the row scope ('every guide's home, status, access, standard, syndication and grounding') plus the distribution roll-up. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like get_guide (single guide) and list_capabilities/list_taxonomy (different registry subjects).

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 listing/querying the full guide registry, with optional filters and a roll-up, so an agent can infer a general use case. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over get_guide, list_capabilities, or list_taxonomy, nor does it give exclusion criteria like 'use get_guide for a single guide's detail.'

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 no safety contradiction exists. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by clarifying that the output is machine-readable data, includes live guide counts for shelves, and covers classification conventions rather than just a flat list.

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 begins with the tool's core purpose and then packs the payload list without fluff. Every listed item adds meaning about the taxonomy scope, and the 'rather than prose' contrast earns its place by setting response expectations.

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 zero parameters, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description covers what an agent needs to decide whether to call this tool. It names the main taxonomy areas and clarifies the machine-readable nature, while the output schema can handle detailed return-value documentation.

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, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately focuses on what the tool returns rather than parameter behavior, since there is nothing to document at the parameter level.

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 clearly identifies the resource as the bicycle.guide vocabulary, enumerating its concrete components: domains, shelves, series, personas, guide_types, and classification conventions. This differentiates it from sibling tools like list_guides or get_guide, which are about guides themselves 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 implies usage: call this when you need the program's vocabulary as machine-readable data rather than prose. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus list_capabilities or list_guides, nor does it mention exclusions. The distinction from siblings is left mostly to inference from the tool name and contents.

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