get_governance_state

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

Despite no annotations, the description declares 'Read-only', disclosing key behavioral trait. Lists exact data points inspected and optional status reporting. Could add more on side effects or permissions but sufficient for a read-only tool.

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?

Two precise sentences front-load the purpose and constraints. No filler, every phrase earns its place.

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?

With one optional parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers expected behavior and return semantics, listing all governance aspects checked.

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 coverage is 100%, but description adds value by explaining the optional parameter's purpose: 'reports the status of that specific timelock operation', going beyond the schema's label.

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 and resources: 'verify GBLIN protocol governance state', and enumerates concrete checks (ownership, delays, role counts, pending proposals). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like 'analyze_treasury_health' by focusing on governance, not treasury.

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?

Explicitly states 'use this to gate trust-sensitive agent actions', providing clear context. Doesn't name alternative tools for governance but implies this is the go-to readiness check.

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