get_constants

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It clearly discloses the return structure (a dict with position_classes, evaluation_modes, and rollout_types) and its role in supplying values to other tools. Being a no-argument getter, the behavior is fully transparent; there are no side effects or hidden complexities.

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 three short sentences: purpose, return value, and usage. It is front-loaded with the main purpose, every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant or verbose content.

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 simplicity of a zero-parameter constant lookup with an output schema, the description is fully complete. It explains what the tool returns, that the values are used by other tools, and how to apply those values. An agent can confidently leverage this tool without further clarification.

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, so the baseline is 4. The description adds useful context about the output, but there are no parameter semantics to explain. The schema already reflects no parameters, so no additional info is required.

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 exactly what the tool does: 'Get all GNUBG constant values used by other tools.' This clearly identifies the verb (get), resource (constant values), and scope (all GNUBG constants). It distinguishes the tool from siblings by focusing on constants rather than operations like classify or rollout.

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 explicitly says 'Use these string names as parameter values in other tools,' which tells the agent when to use this tool: to obtain valid enum values for other tools. It stops short of stating when not to use it or naming alternatives, but since it is the only constant-retrieval tool, this is sufficient.

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