guide-registry

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 context by revealing that the result includes artifact and routing-surface status, which goes beyond the bare read-only hint.

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 primary action and resource, then appends the result details. Every phrase earns its place; there is no redundant or vague 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?

Given the single required parameter, full schema coverage, a read-only annotation, and an output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. It states the input key and what the returned row contains, leaving no critical 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?

The only parameter, slug, is fully documented in the schema with a type and example. The description's 'by slug' adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, 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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a precise resource ('one guide's registry row'), and the lookup method ('by slug'), and it notes the returned status fields. The singular 'one' and slug-based lookup clearly distinguish this from sibling list tools like 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 makes clear this is for fetching a single registry row when a slug is known, which implies a targeted lookup rather than browsing all guides. It does not explicitly name alternatives or give when-not-to-use guidance, but the usage context is unambiguous.

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 adds valuable behavioral nuance: null ksao_type/canon_component_id values mean 'not yet joined', not 'no link' — which prevents a likely misinterpretation. It also explains the joining/hydration behavior beyond what annotations convey.

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 concrete parameter usage patterns, and the third clarifies a critical null-semantics gotcha. 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 highly parametrized tool with an output schema and read-only annotations, the description covers the essential decision points and the most likely source of confusion (null semantics). The remaining parameter details are already documented in the input schema, so nothing critical 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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra semantic value by showing how key parameters combine with intent (e.g., min_guides=2 for the cross-cutting spine, capability_detail for hydration). This raises it above 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 ('Traverse') and a concrete resource ('the capability spine joining books, guides, KSAO-grade elements and jobs'). It clearly differentiates this tool from siblings like get_guide, list_guides, and list_taxonomy by emphasizing cross-entity traversal and joining.

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 usage recipes: min_guides=2 for cross-cutting capabilities, role=<role> for job requirements, and capability_detail=<slug> for a package with hydrated elements and books. This tells an agent exactly when and how to invoke the tool for different intents.

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 the read-only, non-destructive safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral details about the result scope — it includes the roll-up and even guides whose home has no rendering surface — but does not describe pagination, filtering behavior, or row shape; those are partly covered by the schema and output schema.

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 focused sentence that leads with the resource and scope and then specifies the notable roll-up inclusion. No filler, though the list of row attributes is somewhat dense.

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 list-style read-only tool, the description plus the fully documented schema and output schema provide enough context to select and call the tool. The main missing element is explicit guidance on when to prefer sibling tools, but that is a usage-guideline gap rather than a completeness failure.

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?

Because schema description coverage is 100% and all 13 optional filters have their own detailed schema descriptions, the tool description does not need to repeat filter semantics. Its mention of displayed fields aligns with but does not add meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 names a specific verb and resource ('List the bicycle.guide registry') and enumerates what rows contain: home, status, access, standard, syndication, grounding, and the distribution roll-up. This clearly distinguishes the tool from get_guide, list_capabilities, and list_taxonomy by scope and content.

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 registry-wide listing tool ('every guide... plus the distribution roll-up'), which suggests using it for overviews rather than fetching a single guide. However, it never explicitly names sibling alternatives or gives when-to-use/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 provide readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context such as 'live guide counts' and 'machine-readable data rather than prose', but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits like freshness or response shape, so it stays at a mid score.

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 puts the core action and resource first, then lists the included vocabulary categories. Every item in the list earns its place by clarifying what data will be returned.

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 tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description is complete: it names the taxonomy domains, output style, and classification conventions. No critical invocation detail 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 input schema has zero parameters, so schema coverage is effectively 100% and there are no parameter semantics to explain. The description's enumeration of the taxonomy contents adds meaning beyond the empty schema, supporting the baseline-4 score for a parameterless 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 and resource ('Get the bicycle.guide vocabulary') and enumerates distinct contents: domains, shelves, series, personas, guide_types, and classification conventions. This makes the tool's scope clear and separates it from sibling tools focused on 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 clearly implies the use case: retrieve the guide program's taxonomy as structured data. It does not explicitly discuss when not to use it or name alternatives, but for a parameterless read-only listing tool, the context is strong enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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