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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does an excellent job. It discloses values-locked behavior (only declared charter enforced), demo mode being open/free/never rate-limited, and the additive scope_note field. This goes far beyond basic description, fully compensating for missing annotations.

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 concise yet information-dense, using two focused paragraphs. Every sentence adds value, and the structure clearly separates general transparency from demo-mode specifics.

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 covers the tool's purpose, output fields, demo vs default mode differences, and the scope_note addition. While an output schema exists, the supplementary context about demo disclosure and values-locked behavior makes the description highly complete for a zero-parameter tool.

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, so the baseline is 4. There is no parameter-specific meaning to add, and the description appropriately focuses on behavior and output rather than inputs.

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 lists the current rules/principles enforced by the firewall, specifying the exact fields (name/version/hard_rules/outward_patterns/principles). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_action/check_action_deterministic, which presumably test actions rather than list the charter.

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 conveys the tool is for transparency about the firewall's enforced charter, and explains the PUBLIC_DEMO-mode behavior. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough to infer appropriate use.

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