speckit_constitution

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it states the tool can read, create, or update, it does not disclose potential side effects, permissions required, or whether actions are reversible (e.g., overwriting an existing constitution). This is a significant gap for a tool that supports mutation.

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 concise and front-loaded, consisting of two sentences that immediately state the action and then define the resource. Every sentence adds value, with no filler.

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's moderate complexity (5 parameters, no required fields, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides a clear purpose and definition of the constitution. It is missing some behavioral context like permissions or side effects, but the schema covers parameter semantics. This earns a solid 4.

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 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all five parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter-specific semantics beyond noting the constitution's content areas (e.g., 'core principles, technology choices'), which provides general context but does not directly explain parameters like version_bump or placeholders.

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's function: 'Read, create, or update the project constitution.' It specifies both the verb and the resource, and explains what the constitution contains. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like speckit_init or speckit_check, which focus on other aspects of the spec-kit workflow.

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 implies the tool is used for managing the project constitution, but does not explicitly state when to use each action (read vs write vs create) or when alternatives might be more appropriate. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned. The schema provides some guidance for the action parameter, but the description itself lacks this context.

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