get_constitution

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the return behavior by argument (TOC+Supreme Law vs. single section vs. whole document), which is useful, but says nothing about size/length of the full document, caching, or other operational traits.

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 sentences with the resource and its scope front-loaded before the invocation rules. The first sentence is dense with enumerated standards, which adds identity but is slightly heavier than strictly needed for tool selection.

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 one-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the resource and the call behaviors well enough to invoke correctly. It stops short of clarifying retrieval granularity relative to the subset siblings.

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% and the single parameter is fully enumerated in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description largely restates the schema's own note ('omit or toc' → TOC + Preamble/Supreme Law) with only marginal added meaning.

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?

States a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('Agentic Engineering Persona constitution v3.0.0') and enumerates the standards it codifies. However, the relationship to siblings like get_power_of_10 and get_knowledge_area, which appear to be subsets of this same document, is only implied rather than made explicit.

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 tells the agent how to invoke in each case: no arguments yields the TOC plus Supreme Law, a `section` value returns a part, and 'full' returns everything. This is clear invocation guidance, though it offers no when-not-to-use or alternative-tool routing.

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