capital.new mandate draft tools

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It provides useful context: the ceremony is human-run at a specific URL, and agents only draft/verify while humans authorize. This clarifies that the tool merely returns information and does not perform those actions, though it doesn't explicitly state 'read-only' or describe the return format.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence adds valuable context (human ceremonies, URL, agent/human roles) without redundancy or wasted words.

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 straightforward no-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description fully covers its purpose and key behavioral context. It explains what the tool returns (where and how) and provides the necessary human-process details, making it sufficient for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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 score is 4. There are no parameter details to add, and the description correctly focuses on the tool's behavior rather than non-existent parameters.

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 function: 'Returns where and how a mandate draft becomes an instrument.' It specifies the resource (ceremony info) and distinguishes the tool from siblings by emphasizing the human ceremony and the distinct roles of agents versus humans.

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 that this tool is used when one needs ceremony details, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. Sibling tools are not referenced, so an agent must infer when to use this over mandate_draft_schema or mandate_draft_verify.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the exact content returned (template, act list, digest convention) and implies a read-only retrieval via 'Returns'. No hidden side effects or auth requirements are mentioned, but for a zero-parameter schema getter, this is adequate. It adds value by stating the output components.

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 verb and resource, then provides the purpose. Every word contributes value without 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 simple read-only retrieval tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is fully complete. It states what is returned and why, giving enough context for an agent to decide to invoke it. The mention of 'capital.new' adds useful domain context.

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 schema is trivially complete. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies. The description does not need to explain parameter formats, and it doesn't, which is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('Returns') and clearly identifies the resource: the v0 Capital Authority Mandate draft template, never-delegable act list, and digest convention. It also explains the intended use ('so an agent can construct a draft its principal will mint'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'verify' or 'ceremony_info'.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when constructing a draft mandate. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the purpose is specific enough to guide selection. The sibling tools are not referenced, but the contextual purpose provides strong guidance.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses essential behavior: the digest is computed over the mandate_draft object serialized as pretty-printed JSON (2-space indent, key order preserved), and it accepts wrapped or bare drafts. This exceeds a minimal disclosure, though it does not specify return behavior or error handling on a digest mismatch.

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 two sentences with the core action front-loaded. The first sentence states what the tool does, and the second adds the essential serialization detail. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or repetition of the schema.

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 verification tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should ideally mention what happens on success/failure. It explains the computation and input formats well but omits return value or behavior when digests differ. Given the tool's moderate complexity, this is a clear gap, making it minimally complete but not fully self-contained.

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 schema already describes the 'draft' parameter in full (wrapped object, bare object, or JSON string), giving 100% coverage. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning; the serialization detail is about digest computation, not the parameter itself. Therefore the baseline of 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb phrase 'Recomputes the SHA-256 digest of a Capital Authority Mandate draft and compares it to the digest embedded in the file,' which clearly states the action and resource. It is distinct from siblings (ceremony_info, mandate_draft_schema) by focusing on digest verification. The purpose is unambiguous and does not rely on the tool name.

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 provides clear context by framing the tool as 'the same replay any counterparty would run,' indicating it is for verifying a draft's integrity. It does not explicitly say when to use it over alternatives, but the verification purpose is sufficiently distinct from the sibling tools to guide an agent. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions are needed.

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