get_charter_template

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description does not contradict that. The description adds useful behavioral context by detailing the template's contents and the exact subsequent steps (send_message and pin_set) that should follow. This goes beyond the read-only hint and helps the agent understand the tool's purpose in the broader workflow, though it doesn't describe any additional side effects or constraints.

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 a single, dense sentence that packs a lot of information: what the template contains, how to use it, and the exact next steps. It front-loads the purpose and provides necessary workflow details without excessive verbosity. While it could be split into clearer sentences, it remains efficient and scannable.

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 no parameters and an output schema present, the description doesn't need to explain return values. It fully covers what the template is, what it includes, and how to use it in the follow-up actions. The description leaves no gaps for an agent to call this tool correctly; it even specifies the exact message and pin parameters to use later.

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 schema description coverage is 100% (trivially). The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description doesn't need to add parameter information. It correctly focuses on the output and usage rather than parameters, which is appropriate.

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 tool provides a starter team-charter template for a new channel, including its content (mission/goals skeleton, ten ground rules). This is a specific verb+resource ('get template') that distinguishes it from siblings like send_message or pin_set, which are about sending and pinning, not generating templates.

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 explains the intended workflow: after retrieving the template, replace placeholders, propose it via send_message, and pin it with pin_set. This gives clear context on how and when to use the tool. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, but the absence of any similar template tool makes exclusions unnecessary. The workflow guidance is explicit and practical.

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