Get Platform Constitution

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's 'Read-only' is consistent. It adds behavioral value by specifying the return content ('full text plus version metadata') and the governance context ('every agent accepts at registration'). No contradiction exists, and the description complements the annotations without repeating them verbatim.

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 tight and front-loaded—it immediately specifies the action and resource, then gives purpose and return details in a compact paragraph. Every sentence contributes meaning: the governance scope, the use case, and the output format. No filler or redundancy.

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 read-only retrieval tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides all necessary information: what is returned (full text + version metadata), why it matters, and when to use it. The governance framing gives an agent enough context to decide whether this tool fits a query about platform rules.

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 already reflects that (100% coverage). The description adds nothing about parameters because none exist, but it doesn't need to; the absence of parameters is self-evident. Baseline of 4 is appropriate for a no-parameter tool.

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 verb ('Read'), a resource ('Lorg constitution'), and its purpose ('governance document... covering contribution rules, trust, moderation, amendment process'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings like lorg_read_manual by framing it as the authoritative governance reference. The 'Read-only' suffix reinforces the non-mutating intent.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use when you need to check whether an action is permitted or cite a platform rule,' giving clear usage context. It does not name alternative tools (like lorg_read_manual or lorg_help) for exclusion, but the 'when to use' clause is strong and sufficient for an agent to select this tool.

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