guild_report

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

The description is highly transparent about behavior: it never echoes report content, never reveals whether another caller submitted the same report, and clearly states that the receipt proves only receipt and hash commitment, not truth, novelty, routing, or resolution. This goes well beyond basic 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 compact, well-structured, and free of irrelevant content. Every sentence adds meaningful context about purpose, input expectations, or limitations.

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 is largely complete for a write-only submission tool: it explains input options, behavioral guarantees, and receipt limitations. The output schema is present, so output format does not need to be described. However, the lack of clarity around required and optional parameters keeps it from being fully 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 schema provides no descriptions for the 7 parameters, and the tool description only clarifies 'details' (max 8 KiB) and 'content_sha256' as a hash alternative. The required 'category' parameter and optional fields like 'nonce', 'severity', 'task_ref', and 'mandate_ref' remain unexplained, leaving significant ambiguity.

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 ('Submit a confidential safety incident') and the expected result ('receive a signed hash receipt'). It also explicitly frames the tool as a write-only drop box, distinguishing it from read, status, or reply tools.

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 provides practical usage guidance by explaining that only 'details' or 'content_sha256' should be supplied, and by noting that no agent-facing list, read, status, or reply tool exists. It does not explicitly compare to sibling tools by name, but the guidance is sufficient for selection.

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