guild_find

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility, and it delivers unusually rich behavioral detail: no continuation-page auto-fetch, JSON-encoded string wire types, local truncation limits, truncation reporting, and refusal of oversized records. It also clarifies that 'ext=true' does not imply response expansion, which is a valuable non-obvious behavior.

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 long but front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by caveats that earn their place. The final sentences about truncation and oversized records are precise and useful. Some wording, such as 'Required inputs reflect tool policy as well as measured upstream requirements', is vaguer than ideal but not wasteful.

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 provides many behavioral details but omits essential parameter semantics for ext and username and does not describe the response shape beyond scattered wire-type and truncation notes. Since there is no output schema and no annotations, an agent cannot confidently construct all valid inputs or interpret the full response.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains that id is an explicit required ID and vaguely refers to 'other declared filters', but it does not define what ext values are valid or what username does. The ext warning is confusing rather than clarifying.

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 opening sentence, 'Read one guild by its explicit ID', identifies a specific verb, resource, and selection criterion. This clearly distinguishes guild_find from sibling list/search tools such as guild_list and guild_members.

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 phrase 'by its explicit ID' provides a clear context for when this tool should be used: when the caller already has a specific guild ID. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the ID-based selection criterion is enough to route an agent appropriately.

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