agent-guild

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that it requires authentication, is free, and grows the trust graph, but does not detail side effects, failure modes, or rate limits.

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 sentences, concise and front-loaded with the primary action. Could be slightly more structured, but 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?

Given 5 parameters and no annotations, the description covers the core purpose and effects but leaves task_id unexplained and lacks example usage. Output schema exists, so return values are not required.

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 description adds meaning for rating (0..1), issuer_api_key (authentication), subject_id (another agent), and capability (implied work type), but task_id is not mentioned, and schema descriptions are absent.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: vouching for work another agent did, with a rating scale. It distinguishes from siblings like guild_register (registration) and guild_search (searching).

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 when to use (to vouch for work) and mentions authentication prerequisite and cost (free), but does not explicitly compare to siblings or specify when not to use.

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?

No annotations are present, so the description must carry full burden. It only states that it returns an agent or null, but does not disclose whether it is read-only, its cost, or any side effects. 'Safest' is undefined.

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 very concise with a single sentence plus a use instruction. No wasted words, but some additional explanation could improve usability without sacrificing conciseness.

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?

Despite having an output schema and sibling tools, the description lacks details on input parameters, return values, and selection criteria. It is insufficiently complete for an agent to reliably invoke without extra context.

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 0%; the description mentions 'capability' in backticks but does not explain the parameter meaning or format. 'min_trust' is entirely undocumented. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema names.

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 clearly states the tool returns the single safest agent to delegate a capability to, or null. It differentiates from sibling tools like guild_search or guild_risk_score by focusing on delegation safety.

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 explicitly advises to call this before hiring/delegating, providing clear context for use. However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the return values (id, did, api_key) and notes that the api_key signs attestations, and states it's free. This adds useful behavioral context beyond the 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 concise (two sentences), front-loads the main action and returns, and contains no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.

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 tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers the core behavior and return values adequately.

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 description does not explain the parameters 'name' and 'capabilities' at all. With 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate but fails to do so, leaving the agent without necessary context for these parameters.

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 clearly states the action (register) and the resource (this agent on Agent Guild). It distinguishes from sibling tools like guild_attest, guild_best_agent, etc., which serve different purposes.

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 when to use (to register an agent) but does not provide explicit guidelines, such as prerequisites or when not to use, nor alternatives.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries full transparency burden. It discloses the return structure (risk, trust, confidence, collusion suspicion) and risk range, but does not mention whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or has side effects. The presence of an output schema partially compensates.

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?

Single sentence that is front-loaded with the purpose and enumerates the output fields clearly. No redundant words; each part adds value. Ideal length for a simple tool.

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?

Adequately covers output semantics but omits input parameter documentation. Since there is an output schema, the description could focus more on the input. The context could benefit from noting that agent_id is required and that the agent must exist.

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 sole parameter agent_id is not described in the tool description, and input schema has 0% description coverage. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema field name, failing to clarify what agent_id represents or how it should be provided.

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 clearly indicates the tool returns a risk assessment decision (hire/caution/avoid) with numeric scale and additional metrics, differentiating it from sibling tools like guild_attest or guild_register. However, it lacks a direct action verb such as 'evaluate' or 'score', slightly reducing specificity.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what the tool does, without context on prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions. Sibling tool names suggest different functions but no explicit comparison.

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 discloses the return fields (id, name, trust, confidence, price_per_call, rank) and notes ranking by attack-resistant trust. However, it lacks information on pagination, handling of no matches, rate limits, or authentication requirements. Without annotations, this is a moderate disclosure.

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 with a clear purpose, followed by a list of return fields. No wasted words, front-loaded correctly. Appropriate length for the tool.

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?

The description lists return fields, which compensates for lack of output schema details. However, it does not explain optional parameters (limit, min_trust) or the ranking algorithm. The 0% schema coverage leaves gaps in parameter understanding.

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 0%, and the description adds no meaning beyond the schema. The capability parameter is mentioned but not explained. No details on limit or min_trust semantics. The description fails to compensate for missing schema descriptions.

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 clearly states 'Find agents that have a capability, ranked by attack-resistant trust,' providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like guild_best_agent or guild_attest by focusing on search by capability with a trust ranking.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned. The description only states what it does, not when it should be chosen over siblings like guild_best_agent.

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