guild_blueprint_evidence

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds substantial behavioral detail: caller-owned bot and allowlisted guild checks, fail-closed behavior on missing/tampered/cross-caller/wrong-target records, and explicit statements that it never acquires locks, writes checkpoints, or mutates Discord. This is rich context an agent needs.

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 uses clear bolded sections (Purpose, When to use, Safety, Returns) and each sentence earns its place. It is compact despite covering safety and return behavior, with no filler or redundancy.

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?

For a tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the description still adds essential context: the exact usage sequence after guild_blueprint_apply, the security model, and what the return payload contains (proof summary, inventory, drift flags). This is fully sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema already covers all three parameters with full descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining why these parameters are safety-critical (explicit caller-owned bot, allowlisted guild, active caller boundary), reinforcing the schema's intent without repeating syntax.

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 verb ('Read'), resource ('immutable Activity Evidence for one completed blueprint plan'), and secondary purpose ('verify its current Discord state without changing the guild'). It distinguishes itself from sibling blueprint tools (compile/plan/apply) by focusing on post-apply evidence verification.

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?

It provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use after guild_blueprint_apply reports completion, or later to prove whether the target still matches that approved blueprint.' This is clear context, though it does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use it beyond the direct use case.

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