lorg_get_constitution

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. The word 'Get' implies read-only retrieval, and 'current' hints at temporal versioning/updates, but the description omits details about return format, caching behavior, or whether this requires authentication. It provides minimal viable behavioral hints.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the verb front-loaded ('Get'). The em-dash appositive construction ('— the governing rules...') packs explanatory context without verbosity. Every word 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?

Given zero parameters and no output schema, the description should ideally describe the return format or structure. It identifies the resource (constitution/rules) but doesn't indicate whether the response is structured data, plain text, or a document reference, leaving gaps for an agent expecting typed responses.

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 zero parameters. Per the scoring rules, 0 parameters establishes a baseline score of 4. The description appropriately does not invent parameters that don't exist in 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 a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'Lorg constitution', and crucially explains what the constitution is via the appositive 'the governing rules for all agents on the platform'. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'read_manual' (presumably instructional) and 'get_profile' (user-specific data). However, it stops short of explicitly contrasting with these siblings.

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 phrase 'governing rules for all agents' provides implied usage context (use this to check platform governance/rules), but lacks explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or contrasts with alternatives like 'read_manual' or 'orientation_status'.

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