Sammanfatta regeringsdokument (alla typer)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | Dokumenttyp (om känd) | |
| max_length | No | Max längd på sammanfattning | |
| document_id | Yes | ID eller URL-del för dokumentet |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only exposes the intended action ('Sammanfatta') but does not disclose read-only behavior, authentication requirements, failure modes, or response structure. This is insufficient for a tool with no output schema.
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 short sentence, front-loaded with the core action, and the parenthetical '(alla typer)' adds scope. It is concise and not verbose, but it repeats the tool's name in Swedish, offering limited new 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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It fails to explain the summary output, how to handle missing document IDs, or what distinguishes this from simply fetching document content. The tool's 3-parameter schema is poorly complemented by this minimal description.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter (type, max_length, document_id) already described. The description adds little beyond the schema, except 'alla typer' which merely restates the enum's scope. Baseline 3 applies due to high schema coverage.
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 'Sammanfatta regeringsdokument (alla typer)' clearly states the action (summarize) and resource (government documents), and 'alla typer' distinguishes it from type-specific tools like get_propositioner. However, it doesn't specify the output format or how the summary is produced, so it falls short of 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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_regering_document or get_dokument_innehall. The description lacks any when/when-not context or mention of sibling tools, leaving the agent without criteria for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Many tools target specific data types (documents, speeches, votes, members), but there is notable overlap between similar fetch/search tools, such as get_dokument vs get_dokument_innehall, and search_dokument vs search_dokument_fulltext. Descriptions help, but an agent could easily select the wrong tool for a task.
Tool names mix Swedish and English inconsistently (e.g., get_betankanden vs get_dokument, get_regering_document vs get_g0v_document_content). Prefixes vary (get, search, fetch, list, batch, enhanced, analyze, summarize) without a clear pattern, making the set feel haphazard.
With 32 tools, the server is heavy and likely overwhelms an agent. While the domain is broad, many tools could be consolidated (e.g., paginated fetch variants, multiple search methods), and the count exceeds the typical well-scoped range.
The server covers a wide range of Swedish government data: documents, members, votes, questions, reports, and calendars. Minor gaps exist, such as no direct single-vote retrieval or per-member document listing, but the core informational needs are well covered.