get_legal_boundaryReturn the mandatory educational / non-advice boundary statement. Call when the Owner asks if this is legal advice.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| audience | No | Who will read the boundary line. Example: owner |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| boundary | Yes | Mandatory educational / non-advice boundary statement |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safe read-only behavior is covered. The description adds the 'mandatory' and 'educational / non-advice' framing but does not disclose additional behavioral details such as output structure or side effects, which are partially covered by the 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?
Two sentences with no wasted words. The tool's action is front-loaded, and the usage trigger is stated immediately afterward. Every sentence 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, idempotent, read-only tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs: what it returns and when to call it. No additional context is required.
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%: the only parameter, 'audience', is already described as 'Who will read the boundary line. Example: owner.' The description does not need to add parameter meaning, and it does not attempt to, so the baseline of 3 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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and a specific resource ('the mandatory educational / non-advice boundary statement'), which clearly distinguishes it from all sibling tools. Even without naming an alternative, an agent can identify exactly what this tool offers.
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 an explicit trigger: 'Call when the Owner asks if this is legal advice.' This is clear contextual guidance, though it does not mention exclusions or alternatives. The absence of an alternative is acceptable given the tool's unique purpose.
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.
Each tool occupies a distinct step in the intake-to-submission pipeline, with clearly paired tools like prepare_submit_confirmation/confirm_and_submit. A few knowledge/checklist tools such as get_module_playbook, get_skill, and search_book could overlap at the margins, but their descriptions separate modules, workflow skills, and cited passages well enough.
The set overwhelmingly follows lower_snake_case action_object naming like get_*, list_*, prepare_*, fill_fields, and open_portal. Minor deviations such as confirm_and_submit and wait_for_user_ready are still imperative and readable, so the naming remains predictable overall.
At 25 tools, the server sits at the top of the 'heavy but borderline' range. The broad advisory/portal-automation scope mostly justifies the count, but several browser-session helpers and guidance/checklist tools could plausibly be consolidated without losing core capability.
The tool surface covers the full workflow: intake, risk assessment, guidance, module/skill selection, drafting and review bundles, self-serve or assisted browsing, form filling, and guarded submission. Minor gaps like updating intake data or checking post-submission status are workable rather than fatal.