List the annexes (Anhänge) of a consolidation with titles and path eIds (annex_u1/…): use before reading an Anhang with read_article. norm.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lang | No | Manifestation language (de|fr|it|en|rm); default de. Which languages a version carries as XML is the graph's answer — fedlex.list_expressions shows it before a read. | |
| eli_version | Yes | Dated consolidation: `<abstract-eli>/<YYYYMMDD>`. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by revealing the output shape (titles and path eIds) and the exact path eId format (annex_u1/…), which an agent needs to proceed to read_article. No contradiction with 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 core sentence is compact and front-loaded with the essential purpose. The only minor blemish is the trailing 'norm.', which appears to be a stray artifact and adds slight noise without contributing meaning.
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 list operation with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the return value and how to use the result. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to call this tool 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%, with both lang and eli_version already documented meaningfully in the schema. The description does not add significant parameter-level semantics beyond referencing the consolidation, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 ('List') and resource ('annexes of a consolidation'), and also specifies the returned content ('titles and path eIds'). It is easy to distinguish from siblings like read_article or get_structure because it focuses narrowly on annex listing.
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 tells the agent when to use this tool: 'use before reading an Anhang with read_article.' This provides useful sequencing context. It does not enumerate when-not-to-use cases or alternatives, but the clear precondition is sufficient for this narrow tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.