GitJog — Hungarian legislation

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

Annotations already signal readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds meaningful behavioral detail: only differing sections are returned, with old/new text and line-by-line blocks. This goes beyond the structured annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence conveys the core purpose and output format, and the second gives input-source context. The second sentence is slightly cryptic but still earns its place.

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, the description reasonably explains what the caller will receive (differing §-s, old/new text, line-by-line blocks) and how to obtain the date inputs. A minor ambiguity in the wording of the second sentence keeps it from being fully complete.

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%, so the schema already documents slug, tol, ig, and horgony. The description mentions where the date values come from, but does not add parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 a specific verb (összevetése) and resource (két időállapot of a jogszabály), and specifies the output scope: only the differing §-s with old and new text in line-by-line blocks. This distinguishes it from siblings like szakasz or valtozasok.

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 explicitly tells the agent that the time-state dates come from `szakasz` or `valtozasok`, which is practical guidance for preparing the inputs. It does not list exclusions or alternatives, but for a read-only diff tool the context is clear enough.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about id provenance and format, but does not disclose error behavior or return structure beyond 'full text'.

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?

A single sentence with no filler; it front-loads the purpose and id format. Every element earns its place.

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 simple read-only tool with one parameter and rich annotations, this description is sufficient: an agent knows what to pass and what it will receive. No output schema exists, but the return value is stated directly.

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 schema only says id is a non-empty string, so the description carries the burden for parameter meaning. It explains that the id is a search result identifier in 'slug#anchor' format, which is meaningful guidance not present in the schema.

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 that the tool returns the full text of a `search` result for a given id, and specifies the id format as 'slug#anchor'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling search tools, which would return result lists rather than full content.

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 phrase 'Egy `search`-találat teljes szövege' makes the intended workflow clear: call this after obtaining a search result id. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the usage context is strongly implied.

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

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

Annotations already declare the operation read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those hints: the result returns the full section text up to 4000 characters and a citable section URL, and the search handles Hungarian stemming. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded: the purpose question comes first, followed by query modes, then output behavior. Every sentence carries useful information, and there is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description explains what the caller gets: the full section text, the URL, and a citable result in one round. It covers the two main invocation modes and the key output constraint, making it complete for a read-only search tool with well-covered parameters.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the schema already documents q, limit, and hatalyos with examples. The description reinforces the intended usage of q, but it does not meaningfully extend the meaning of limit or hatalyos beyond what the schema provides.

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 opening question "Melyik § szabályozza X-et?" frames a concrete use case, and the description explicitly states that the tool performs full-text search with Hungarian stemming or citation resolution in Hungarian statutes. It also defines the output shape (section text up to 4000 characters plus section URL), which clearly distinguishes it from a generic search tool.

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 gives a clear context for use: finding which section regulates a topic or resolving a statutory citation. It provides representative query formats, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternative sibling tools, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), lowering the bar. The description adds one useful behavioral fact beyond annotations — the return value is an id shaped for `fetch` — which matters because there is no output schema. No contradiction exists: a read-only search is consistent with the annotations.

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?

A single semicolon-joined sentence with zero filler: purpose first, workflow linkage second. Every word earns its place and the essential information is front-loaded.

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?

The tool is minimally complex (one required param, no enums, no nesting), annotations carry the safety profile, and the description supplies the critical integration detail (result id feeds `fetch`). The notable gap is absence of differentiation from the `kereses` sibling, which leaves the tool's unique role slightly underspecified.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only does so implicitly: by stating the tool searches Hungarian laws, an agent can infer `query` holds the search text, but the description never explicitly defines the parameter's semantics, expected language, or matching behavior. Adequate for one obvious parameter, but not explicit.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Keresés a magyar törvényekben' (search in Hungarian laws), and adds a workflow fact by stating its result id is consumed by `fetch`. It stops short of 5 because the sibling `kereses` is almost certainly the same function in Hungarian, and nothing in the description separates `search` from it.

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 phrase 'az eredmény id-jét a fetch várja' communicates how the tool fits into a sequence (search first, then pass the id to fetch), which is genuine usage context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance, and no routing to any alternative despite the ambiguous `kereses` sibling.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: the optional date-specific text, the fallback to metadata/TOC when no section is provided, and the explicit warning that it does not return the full text. This is meaningful additional disclosure.

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 two compact sentences with no filler. The core selection mechanism and optional date are front-loaded, and the fallback behavior is clarified in the second sentence. Every phrase earns its place.

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 tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the main return modes: section text, or metadata/time-state list/TOC. It could be more explicit about edge cases such as providing both horgony and paragrafus, but the overall behavior is clear enough for an agent to call it correctly.

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%, so the parameters are already documented with examples and formats. The description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, which meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 exactly what the tool returns: a single § of a regulation, selected by anchor or § number, optionally as in force on a given date, and without a § it returns metadata, time-state list, and table of contents. It also explicitly excludes the full text, which differentiates it from siblings like fetch.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: for a specific section's text at a point in time, or for a regulation's metadata/TOC when no section is given. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state 'use X instead', so it stops short of full exclusionary guidance.

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

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

The annotations already declare the tool as read-only and idempotent. The description adds valuable behavioral details: the cursor pattern requiring the first call to pass a timestamp and subsequent calls to use the kovetkezo_felveve_utan response field, plus the q-filter's matching semantics with examples.

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 three sentences long and front-loaded with the core purpose. It packs parameter guidance and use cases without redundancy, and the colon/semicolon structure keeps it readable.

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 tool with no output schema, the description names the key response field (kovetkezo_felveve_utan) and the old/new text output. It adequately covers the main interaction patterns, though it does not detail the full response shape (likely acceptable since it is a list tool).

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 schema already documents every parameter (100% coverage), so the description's extra examples and workflow guidance add value beyond the structured definitions. The description clarifies how q, slugs, and since/until combine for different question types and explains the cursor's stateful usage, which the schema alone does not convey.

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 lists amendments that have entered into force with old/new text of affected sections. The title 'Mi változott?' reinforces the intent, and this distinguishes it from sibling tools like diff or kereses which serve different functions.

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 explicitly separates two use cases – monitoring with the felveve_utan cursor and historical queries with since/until/slugs. It gives concrete parameter combinations for each scenario, though it does not name alternative tools explicitly.

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