Metis · Data Guardian — Get Constitution

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states it loads and returns a summary, but omits details on idempotency, authorization requirements, rate limits, or any side effects. For a read operation, this is a significant gap.

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 highly concise: three sentences plus an argument list, each sentence adding unique value. It is front-loaded with the version and purpose, with no redundant information.

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 tool with one parameter and an output schema (not shown but present), the description adequately covers the tool's role and expected output. It could be slightly more specific about the return format, but is generally complete.

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 single parameter 'level' has no schema description (0% coverage), but the description lists explicit values ('quick', 'standard', 'deep', 'chain') and explains that it controls the complexity of returned behavioral rules. This compensates for the lack of schema documentation.

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?

Description clearly states the tool loads the Metis constitutional policy for agent context, returning a summary of behavioral rules. It distinguishes itself from sibling get_* tools by specifying it enforces shared policy across all agent types, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 advises to prepend the policy to any agent's system context to enforce shared policy. This provides clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it.

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