get_constitution

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool 'Returns a compact summary', implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly confirm no side effects or discuss auth or rate limits. This is adequate but leaves minor ambiguity.

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 short sentences plus an args list, all front-loaded with key info. Every sentence adds value: first states the action, second explains usage, and the args clarifies the sole parameter. No fluff or 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?

Given the tool is simple (one optional param, no nested objects, output schema present), the description covers the purpose, usage, and parameter meaning sufficiently. It does not need to explain return values due to existing output schema, and all necessary context is provided.

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 0% description coverage, but the description adds list of valid values: 'quick', 'standard', 'deep', 'chain'. This enriches the parameter meaning beyond the schema, which only specifies type string and a default. The description fully compensates for the schema gap.

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 'Load the Metis constitutional policy for agent context' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on retrieving a compact policy summary, which is unique among the listed tools.

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 to any agent's system context to enforce shared policy across all agent types', providing clear usage context. It does not explicitly exclude alternative scenarios or mention when not to use, but the guidance is sufficiently directional.

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