guild_coordination_policy

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It clearly states that the tool returns a document and includes an explicit guarantee that the policy never asks to be written into persistent configuration, which conveys low-risk, read-only behavior. It does not fully enumerate side effects, but the read-only nature is strongly implied.

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 moderately long but well-structured, starting with the core purpose, then summarizing the policy's key points, and ending with an example call and return description. The information is relevant and front-loaded, though some sentences are repetitive about the policy being canonical and machine-readable.

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 fully explains what the tool returns, what the document contains, and that it is equivalent to other delivery channels. Given that there are no parameters and the output schema exists, the description provides enough context for a caller to understand the tool's function and result without additional information.

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 and an empty input schema, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the tool's purpose and return content, and the 100% schema coverage is vacuously satisfied because no parameters exist.

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 explicitly states that the tool returns the Guild's canonical coordination-safety policy document, AGCS-1, and summarizes its key contents. It clearly identifies the primary resource and the action (returning/retrieving the policy), and it is easily distinguishable from sibling tools by name and role.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions that it is the same document as GET /coordination-policy and the A2A policy message, but it does not explain when a caller should invoke this tool, when to avoid it, or how it compares to related guild_* tools.

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