get_charter_template

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the returned content in detail (mission/goals skeleton plus ten ground rules) and the fact that it contains <placeholders> requiring replacement, effectively telegraphing its read-only template nature. It stops short of explicitly stating there are no side effects, which would have sealed a 5.

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?

It is a single sentence and front-loads the core purpose, but the embedded enumeration of ground rules ('agree-before-build, honest work_status, explicit consent, ...' ending in a bare ellipsis) is bulky and only partly earns its place; the trailing '...' signals padding rather than 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?

With an output schema present and zero parameters, return values and inputs are covered elsewhere; the description adds the workflow context needed to use the template correctly. It could be a 5 if it explicitly flagged the operation as side-effect-free.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There are no argument semantics to explain, and the description correctly focuses on usage 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 clearly states the resource: a starter team-charter template for a NEW channel, sourced from a proven charter. It implies retrieval via 'get' in the name and 'A starter ... template' phrasing, but never uses an explicit verb like 'Returns' or 'Retrieves', so it is slightly less crisp than a 5.

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?

It gives an explicit lifecycle: replace <placeholders>, propose to your partner via kind='proc' with mention 'team-charter', and pin only after their 'agree' using pin_set(approved_by=...). It names the target channel condition (NEW channel) and routes the agent to sibling tools, so when-to-use and next steps are concrete.

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