Retrieve the codified decisions and passed resolutions of the UAW — the living record of what this union has collectively decided and declared. These are the rules we compute by.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. The verb 'Retrieve' indicates a read-only operation, and 'passed resolutions' implies stable, official data. It adds contextual behavior by describing these as 'the living record' and 'the rules we compute by,' but it does not explicitly state side-effect-free behavior, auth requirements, or return format details.
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 two sentences, about 25 words, front-loads the core purpose ('Retrieve'), and uses vivid but meaningful phrasing ('living record,' 'rules we compute by') that reinforces the tool's authoritative role. Every sentence earns its 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?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description adequately explains what is returned—codified decisions and passed resolutions—and why they matter. It could be slightly more explicit about the shape of the return value (e.g., list vs. object), but for a low-complexity retrieval tool this is nearly complete.
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 0 parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information because none is needed; the schema already covers everything with an empty properties object.
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 'Retrieve' and identifies a distinct resource: 'codified decisions and passed resolutions of the UAW.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_proposals, which likely deal with pending proposals rather than passed resolutions.
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 implied usage context by calling this 'the rules we compute by,' suggesting it is the authoritative source for official decisions. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_proposals, and it names no exclusions or alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct resource or action: proposals, grievances, members, stats, feed, and resolutions are clearly separated. Even similar getters (get_member vs get_members) are unambiguous, and governance actions like create, deliberate, file, vote, support, and open vote have specific scopes with no overlapping purposes.
Tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (e.g., get_proposals, create_proposal, vote_on_proposal). The only deviation is 'my_vote', which is a noun phrase rather than a verb command, but this is minor and does not create confusion.
At 17 tools, the set is slightly above the typical 3-15 well-scoped range, but the domain is broad (membership, proposals, grievances, platform overview). Each tool serves a distinct purpose and none feel redundant, so the count is justified.
The core lifecycle is well covered: joining and profile updates, proposal creation/deliberation/voting, grievance filing/support/classification, and governance overview via feed, stats, and resolutions. Minor gaps exist, such as no way to edit a proposal or view detailed voting tallies, but these are workable.
