get_governance_state

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly declares the tool as 'Read-only' and enumerates the specific data it retrieves. This adequately discloses the non-mutating behavior, though it could mention potential network costs or rate limits.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the core functionality and then add context for the optional parameter. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy or filler.

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 moderate complexity (multiple governance aspects checked) and no output schema, the description lists what is returned but does not describe the format or structure of the response. An agent would benefit from knowing whether results are aggregated or returned separately, which is missing.

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 has 100% coverage for the single optional parameter 'operation_id', and the description repeats the schema's explanation. The description adds value by linking the parameter to 'reporting the status of that specific operation', but does not significantly extend beyond the schema.

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 specific verbs ('Verify', 'confirms', 'reads', 'reports', 'surfaces') and precisely identifies resources ('GBLIN_V5 ownership', 'timelock delays', 'role member counts', 'pending proposals'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools which focus on treasury analysis and token swaps.

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 explicitly states 'Read-only — use this to gate trust-sensitive agent actions', providing clear context for when to invoke the tool. However, it does not exclude scenarios or name alternatives, though siblings are sufficiently different.

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