or_guardrails_assignments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a one-shot view (read operation) and what data it combines, but doesn't describe return format, pagination, or any edge cases. For a simple read tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the key concept 'One-shot view' and immediately explains what it covers. Every word earns its place, with no unnecessary details.

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 zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool does: it shows all guardrail assignments, covering keys and members, and mentions it combines two endpoints. This is complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema confirms this with 100% coverage. Per the rules, a baseline of 4 applies for tools with no params. The description adds no parameter information because none exists, but it doesn't need to.

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 purpose with a specific verb and resource: "One-shot view of all guardrail assignments: which keys and which org members are bound to which guardrail." It differentiates from sibling tools like or_guardrails_list (which lists guardrails themselves) and or_guardrail_get (which fetches a single guardrail) by focusing on assignments.

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 implies usage context by noting it combines two endpoints, suggesting it is the comprehensive view for assignments. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it, but the purpose is specific enough to distinguish it from alternatives. Clear context, though no explicit exclusions.

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