commons_assume_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 of explaining behavior. It states a validation requirement and a precondition, but it does not disclose whether the tool changes state, what happens on success or failure, what evidence is required, or what side effects 'assuming' a constitution has. The name implies an affirmative action that the description never clarifies.

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 no redundant material. The core action is front-loaded, followed by the essential precondition and admission criteria. Every word contributes meaning.

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 no-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the main precondition and the gating philosophy. However, it does not describe what the agent should expect after invocation, such as validation result, error behavior, or whether invoking the tool changes the current constitution. Given the sibling tools, a bit more relationship context would make it fully 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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty with full coverage. The description does not need to explain parameter meanings, and it correctly focuses on preconditions and intent instead.

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 states a specific action ('Validate') and resource ('the constitution selected by commons init'), and it ties the tool to the init flow, which helps separate it from the sibling tools. However, the tool name 'assume_constitution' suggests adopting or activating a constitution, while the description says only 'Validate', leaving some ambiguity about the actual effect.

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 gives an explicit precondition: 'source posture must run commons init first.' This tells the agent when the tool can be invoked. It also explains the admission is 'explicit and evidence-gated.' It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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